Suggestion and background modes for real-time collaborative intelligence systems

ABSTRACT

Systems and methods for real-time collaborative computing and collective intelligence are disclosed. A collaborative application runs on a collaborative server connected to a plurality of computing devices. Collaborative sessions are run wherein a group of independent users, networked over the internet, collaboratively answer questions in real-time, thereby harnessing their collective intelligence. Systems and methods for suggestion modes wherein group users select one suggestion from a plurality of suggestions are disclosed, including systems and methods for multi-phase, multi-group suggestion mode embodiments. Methods for background swarming modes and reactivation of the group are also disclosed.

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No.62/067,505 entitled SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MODERATING REAL-TIMECOLLABORATIVE DECISIONS OVER A DISTRIBUTED NETWORKS, filed Oct. 23,2014, which is incorporated in its entirety herein by reference.

This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No.14/668,970 entitled METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR REAL-TIME CLOSED-LOOPCOLLABORATIVE INTELLIGENCE, filed Mar. 25, 2015, which in turns claimsthe benefit of U.S. Provisional Application 61/970,885 entitled METHODAND SYSTEM FOR ENABLING A GROUPWISE COLLABORATIVE CONSCIOUSNESS, filedMar. 26, 2014, both of which are incorporated in their entirety hereinby reference.

This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No.14/708,038 entitled MULTI-GROUP METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR REAL-TIMEMULTI-TIER COLLABORATIVE INTELLIGENCE, filed May 8, 2015, which in turnsclaims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application 61/991,505 entitledMETHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MULTI-TIER COLLABORATIVE INTELLIGENCE, filed May10, 2014, both of which are incorporated in their entirety herein byreference.

This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No.14/738,768 entitled INTUITIVE INTERFACES FOR REAL-TIME COLLABORATIVEINTELLIGENCE, filed Jun. 12, 2015, which in turns claims the benefit ofU.S. Provisional Application 62/012,403 entitled AN INTUITIVE INTERFACEFOR REAL-TIME COLLABORATIVE CONTROL, filed Jun. 15, 2014, both of whichare incorporated in their entirety herein by reference.

This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No.14/859,035 entitled SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ASSESSMENT AND OPTIMIZATIONOF REAL-TIME COLLABORATIVE INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS, filed Sep. 18, 2015which in turns claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No.62/066,718 entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MODERATING AND OPTIMIZINGREAL-TIME SWARM INTELLIGENCES, filed Oct. 21, 2014, both of which areincorporated in their entirety herein by reference.

This application is a continuation of International Application No.PCT/US15/56394, filed Oct. 20, 2015.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates generally to systems and methods forcollaborative intelligence, and more specifically to systems and methodsfor closed-loop, dynamic collaborative intelligence.

2. Discussion of the Related Art

Portable computing devices, such as cell phones, personal digitalassistants, and portable media players have become popular personaldevices due to their highly portable nature, their ability to provideaccessibility to a large library of stored media files, theirinterconnectivity with existing computer networks, and their ability topass information to other portable computing devices and/or tocentralized servers through phone networks, wireless networks and/orthrough local spontaneous networks such as Bluetooth® networks. Many ofthese devices also provide the ability to store and display media, suchas songs, videos, podcasts, ebooks, maps, and other related contentand/or programming. Many of these devices are also used as navigationtools, including GPS functionality. Many of these devices are also usedas personal communication devices, enabling phone, text, picture, andvideo communication with other similar portable devices. Many of thesedevices include touch screens, tilt interfaces, voice recognition, andother modern user input modes. As a result, the general social trendwithin industrial societies is that every person does now or soon willmaintain at least one such multi-purpose electronic device upon theirperson at most times, especially when out and about.

While such devices allow accessing information and person to personcommunication, they do not provide any unique tools and infrastructurethat specifically enable groups of electronically networked individualsto have a real-time group-wise experience that evokes the group'scollaborative intent and intelligence (Collaborative Consciousness).Hence, there is a substantial need to provide tools and methods by whichgroups of individuals, each having a portable computing device upontheir person, to more easily contribute their personal will/intent to anemerging collaborative consciousness, allowing the group to collectivelyanswer questions or otherwise express their groupwise will in real-time.Furthermore, there is a need to provide tools and methods that enablegroups of users to be informed of the group-wise will that is emergingin real-time. The present invention, as described herein, addressesthese and other deficiencies present in the art.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Several embodiments of the invention advantageously address the needsabove as well as other needs by providing a suggestion mode process fora group of users in real-time collaborative control of at least onegraphical object, each user of the group associated with one of aplurality of computing devices, each computing device including adisplay interface, configured to exchange data with a collaborationserver, and run a collaboration application, the collaboration serverperforming the steps of: receiving, from a first computing device of afirst user of the group, a representation of a question, an identity ofthe first user, and a suggestion mode indication; sending of therepresentation of the question and the suggestion mode indication toeach of the plurality of computing devices, whereby each collaborationapplication updates the display interface to display the representationof the question, the suggestion mode indication and a suggestion inputfield configured to receive input; receiving, from a second computingdevice of the group associated with a second user, a representation of asuggestion based on input received by the suggestion input field, and anidentity of the second user; adding the representation of the suggestionto a suggestion list; and sending of the representation of thesuggestion to the plurality of computing devices.

In another embodiment, the invention can be characterized as abackground mode process for a group of users in real-time collaborativecontrol of at least one graphical object, each user of the groupassociated with one of a plurality of computing devices, each computingdevice including a display interface, configured to exchange data with acollaboration server, and run a collaboration application, thecollaboration server performing the steps of: repeatedly determining,while the collaboration applications are running in an active mode, ifthe background mode process has been triggered by real-time groupactivity; upon determining that the background mode has been triggered,sending a background mode indication to each of the plurality ofcomputing devices, whereby, the collaboration application of each of thecomputing devices enters a background mode; repeatedly determining if awake-up process has been triggered by real-time group activity; and upondetermining that the wake-up process has been triggered, sending awake-up indication to each of the plurality of computing devices,whereby the collaboration application of each of the computing devicesreturns to the active mode.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The above and other aspects, features and advantages of severalembodiments of the present invention will be more apparent from thefollowing more particular description thereof, presented in conjunctionwith the following drawings.

FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary real-time collaborativesystem.

FIG. 2 is an exemplary display interface of a computing device of thecollaborative system in accordance with one embodiment of the presentinvention.

FIG. 3 is an exemplary group display interface of the computing deviceof the collaborative system at a point in time during a collaborationsession.

FIG. 4 is an exemplary group display interface of the computing deviceof the collaborative system after the collaboration session has beensuccessfully completed.

FIG. 5 is a frame of an exemplary collaboration session replay video

FIG. 6 is an exemplary display interface during a collaboration sessiondetermining whether to eject a specific member from the group.

FIG. 7 is an exemplary display interface during a session determiningwhether to allow a specific member to join the group.

FIG. 8 is an example display interface of the virtual lobby interface.

FIG. 9 is a flowchart diagram of a suggestion process of the real-timecollaborative system.

FIG. 10 is an exemplary display interface of the computing device of thecollaborative system during a first point in the suggestion process.

FIG. 11 is an exemplary display interface of the computing device of thecollaborative system during a second point in the suggestion process.

FIG. 12 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary multi-group real-timecollaborative system.

FIG. 13 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary multi-group real-timecollaborative system during a first phase of the suggestion process.

FIG. 14 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary multi-group real-timecollaborative system during a second phase of the suggestion process.

FIG. 15 a flowchart diagram of a multi-group, multi-phase collaborationprocess.

FIG. 16 is an exemplary display interface of the computing device duringa suggestion period of a multi-group, multi-phase collaboration process.

FIG. 17 is an exemplary display interface of the computing device at afirst point during a first phase of a multi-group, multi-phasecollaboration process.

FIG. 18 is an exemplary display interface of the computing device at asecond point during the first phase of a multi-group, multi-phasecollaboration process.

FIG. 19 is an exemplary display interface of the computing device duringa second phase of a multi-group, multi-phase collaboration process.

Corresponding reference characters indicate corresponding componentsthroughout the several views of the drawings. Skilled artisans willappreciate that elements in the figures are illustrated for simplicityand clarity and have not necessarily been drawn to scale. For example,the dimensions of some of the elements in the figures may be exaggeratedrelative to other elements to help to improve understanding of variousembodiments of the present invention. Also, common but well-understoodelements that are useful or necessary in a commercially feasibleembodiment are often not depicted in order to facilitate a lessobstructed view of these various embodiments of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The following description is not to be taken in a limiting sense, but ismade merely for the purpose of describing the general principles ofexemplary embodiments. The scope of the invention should be determinedwith reference to the claims.

Reference throughout this specification to “one embodiment,” “anembodiment,” or similar language means that a particular feature,structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodimentis included in at least one embodiment of the present invention. Thus,appearances of the phrases “in one embodiment,” “in an embodiment,” andsimilar language throughout this specification may, but do notnecessarily, all refer to the same embodiment.

Furthermore, the described features, structures, or characteristics ofthe invention may be combined in any suitable manner in one or moreembodiments. In the following description, numerous specific details areprovided, such as examples of programming, software modules, userselections, network transactions, database queries, database structures,hardware modules, hardware circuits, hardware chips, etc., to provide athorough understanding of embodiments of the invention. One skilled inthe relevant art will recognize, however, that the invention can bepracticed without one or more of the specific details, or with othermethods, components, materials, and so forth. In other instances,well-known structures, materials, or operations are not shown ordescribed in detail to avoid obscuring aspects of the invention.

As referred to in this specification, “media items” refers to video,audio, streaming and any combination thereof. In addition, the audiosubsystem is envisioned to optionally include features such as graphicequalization, volume, balance, fading, base and treble controls,surround sound emulation, and noise reduction. One skilled in therelevant art will appreciate that the above cited list of file formatsis not intended to be all inclusive.

Real-time occurrences as referenced herein are those that aresubstantially current within the context of human perception andreaction.

As described in related patent application Ser. Nos. 14/668,970,14/708,038, 14/473,768, and 14/859,035, the massive connectivityprovided by the Internet is used to create a real-time closed-loopcollaborative consciousness (or emergent group-wise intelligence) bycollecting real-time input from large numbers of people through a noveluser interface and processing the collected input from that large numberof users into a singular group intent that can collectively answerquestions, make statements, take actions, select functions, or otherwiserespond to prompts in real time.

The methods use intervening software and hardware to moderate theprocess, closing the loop around the disparate input from each of themany individual participants and the singular output of the group.

A collaboration system has been developed that allows the group of usersto collaboratively control a graphical pointer 210 in order tocollaboratively answer questions or otherwise respond to prompts. In oneembodiment, each individual user (“participant”) engages the userinterface on a computing device 104, conveying his or her individualreal-time will in response to a prompt such as a textually displayed (oraudibly displayed) question as well as in response to real-time feedbackprovided to the user of the group's emerging real-time intent. Thiscloses the loop around each user, for he is conveying individual intentwhile also reacting to the group's emerging intent. Thus each user mustbe able to see not only the prompt that begins a session, but thereal-time group intent as it is forming. For example, if the intent isbeing conveyed as words, the user will see those words form, letter byletter. If the intent is being conveyed as a direction, the user seesthe direction form, degree by degree. If the intent is being conveyed asa choice among objects, the user sees the graphical pointer 210 getcloser and closer to a particular chosen object. Thus, the user isseeing the group's will emerge before his eyes, reacting to that will inreal-time, and thus contributing to it. This closes the loop, not justaround one user, but around all users who have a similar experience ontheir own individual computing device 104 at substantially the sametime. While the embodiments described generally refer to portablecomputing devices, it will be understood that non-portable computingdevices, such as desktop computers, may also be used.

Using the disclosed systems and methods, a “social swarming” platform isenabled that allows users to join one of a plurality of hosted groups(also referred to as swarms), each group comprising a plurality ofusers. The user may collaborate with that group, earn scores and/orcredits and/or rankings based on his performance with respect to othersin the group, and browse the stored output from other groups. In someembodiments, groups can compete with other groups, each of said groupsalso earning group scores, credits, and/or rankings with respect toother groups.

Referring first to FIG. 1, a schematic diagram of an exemplarycollaboration system 100 is shown. Shown are a Central CollaborationServer (CCS) 102, the plurality of portable computing devices 104, and aplurality of exchanges of data with the Central Collaboration Server106.

Embodiments of the plurality of portable computing devices 104 and theinteraction of the computing devices 104 with the system 100 arepreviously disclosed in the related patent applications.

As shown in FIG. 1, the system 100 comprises the Central CollaborationServer (CCS) 102 in communication with the plurality of computingdevices 104, each of said computing devices 104 running a CollaborativeIntent Application (“CIA”). The system 100 is designed to enable theplurality of users, each engaging an interface of one of said computingdevices 104, to jointly control a single graphical element, for examplethe movable pointer 210, through real-time group-wise collaboration. Insome embodiments, such as a multi-tier architecture, the portablecomputing devices 104 may communicate with each other. The CCS 102includes software and additional elements as necessary to perform therequired functions. In this application, it will be understood that theterm “CCS” may be used to refer to the software of the CCS 102 or otherelements of the CCS 102 that are performing the given function.

Although multiple pointers controlled by multiple swarms is enabled bythe innovations of the present invention, for the current discussion wewill give examples that are confined to a single swarm. This is forsimplicity of description and is not intended to limit the scope of theinnovations.

Referring again to FIG. 1, each of the computing devices 104 comprisesone or more processors capable of running the CIA routines anddisplaying a representation of the pointer 210 along with a plurality ofgraphical input choices 208. The computing device 104 could be, forexample, a personal computer running the CIA application. It could alsobe a mobile device such as a smart phone, tablet, headset, smart-watch,or other portable computing device running the CIA. The CIA softwarecode can be configured as a stand-alone executable or be code thatexecutes inside a web-browser or other shell.

While FIG. 1 shows only six computing devices 104 in communication withthe CCS 102, the system 100 is highly scalable, enabling hundreds,thousands, or even millions of users to connect simultaneously to theCCS 102, each using their own computing device 104, thereby sharing areal-time collaborative experience with the other users. In this way,large numbers of users can collaboratively control the pointer 210 togenerate a response by selecting letters, words, or numbers as a groupintelligence.

While FIG. 1 shows simple top-down architecture for direct communicationbetween the CCS 102 and each of the computing devices 104, relatedapplication Ser. No. 14/708,038 entitled MULTI-GROUP METHODS AND SYSTEMSFOR REAL-TIME MULTI-TIER COLLABORATIVE INTELLIGENCE disclosesmulti-group and tiered architectures that enable shared processing loadsamong large numbers of computing devices 104. While FIG. 1 shows adedicated CCS 102, the system 100 can be configured such that one of thecomputing devices 104 acts as the CCS 102 by running both CCS routinesand CIA routines. Such a model is generally viable only when the numberof users is low. Regardless of the architecture used, each of saidcomputing devices 104 that is engaged by a participating user includesone or more display devices for presenting a graphical user interface tothe user.

Referring next to FIG. 2, an exemplary display interface 200 is shown inaccordance with one embodiment of the present invention. Shown are aprompt bar 202, a group name 204, a target area 206, a plurality ofinput choices 208, the pointer 210, a communication menu 212, a boardselection drop-down menu 214, a physics selection drop-down menu 216, achat window 218, a chat input box 220, a current member list 222, astatistics display 224, an invite button 226, and an ask button 228.

The graphical pointer 210 is simultaneously displayed to each user bythe CIA running on his computing device 104. The pointer 210 displayedto each user appears in a substantially similar position with respect toa set of input choices 208 (as compared to the position of the pointer210 on other user's screens). The synchrony of the interfaces iscoordinated by the data 106 received by each computing device 104 sentfrom the CCS 102 over the communications link. In a current embodiment,data 106 is sent from the CCS 102 to each of the plurality of computingdevices 104 at a rate of 60 updates per second, the data 106 includingthe current position of the graphical pointer 210 (also referred to as apuck) with respect to the set of graphical input choices 208, as furthershown below.

In general, the input choices 208 are identically displayed upon all thecomputing devices 104, although some unique embodiments allow fordivergent input choices 208. For example, in some embodiments the inputchoices 208 are displayed in the native language of each user, eachinput choice 208 conveying a substantially similar verbal message, buttranslated based on a language setting of the user. This feature enablesswarms of individuals who may speak different languages and may beunable to communicate directly, to still form a swarm intelligence thatcan collaboratively answer questions or take actions. In suchembodiments, the displayed questions are also automatically translatedinto the chosen native language of the user. This is also true of adisplayed answer, and optionally the chat window 218 output.

In some embodiments, multiple graphical pointers 210 are displayed bythe computing devices 104, each of said graphical pointers 210 beingcollaboratively controlled by a different group of users. For example,500 users may be collaboratively controlling Graphical Pointer #1, whilea different group of 500 users are collaboratively controlling GraphicalPointer #2. The first group of 500 users comprises a first swarm. Thesecond group of 500 users comprises a second swarm. This unique systemand methods allow for the first swarm to compete with the second swarmin a task that is displayed simultaneously to all 1000 users on each oftheir computing devices 104.

As shown in FIG. 2, the CIA software running on each computing device104 is configured to display a graphical display interface 200 thatincludes at least one graphical pointer 210 and the plurality ofspatially arranged graphical input choices 208. In the example shown,the graphical pointer 210 is configured to look like a “glass puck” witha central viewing area that is transparent. In the example shown, theinput choices 208 are configured as a hexagon of six input choices 208,each input choice 208 including a graphical icon (in the embodimentshown, a dot inside a circle) and an associated word. In this case, thesix input choices 208 correspond with possible answers to questions:“Yes”, “Maybe”, “No”, “Yes”, “Bad Question”, and “No”. When the pointer210 is positioned over one of the input choices 208 such that the inputchoice 208 is substantially within a centralized viewing area of thepointer 210 for more than a threshold amount of time, that input choice208 is selected as a target. In common embodiments the threshold amountof time is 3 to 5 seconds. In the current embodiment, the centralizedviewing area appears as a graphical etching on the glass pointer 210,the etching remaining invisible until the pointer 210 approaches atarget.

As shown in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 2, the spatially arrangedgraphical input choices 208 can comprise letters, numbers, words, and/orpunctuation marks. The input choices 208 could also comprisephotographs. In this example, if the pointer 210 is positioned over oneof the six targets for more than the threshold amount of time, thatinput choice 208 is selected as the answer to a previously askedquestion.

To ask a question, the user enters the question into the prompt bar 202.Once entered, the user clicks the ask button 228, which sends thequestion from the CIA software of that particular user (running on hiscomputing device 104) to the CCS 102. Because many users could askquestions, the CCS 102 acts as the gate keeper, deeming the firstquestion received (when no question is currently in process) as the onethat will be asked to the group. In the current embodiment, not allusers are enabled to ask questions at any given time to avoid too muchcompetition for asking. In some embodiments, credits are redeemable bythe user for the right to ask the question. In some embodiments, theuser must spend credits to ask the question, and can only ask if he hasenough credits. In some embodiments, users earn credits based on pointsawarded for participation in a session. More credits are awarded tousers who have high sync scores, less credits being awarded to userswith low sync scores. The methods for computing sync scores will bedescribed in more detail further below.

In addition to asking questions, users can select from a plurality ofpossible target boards by using the board selection drop-down menu 214.The currently selected target board is for yes/no questions. Othertarget boards may include true/false questions, good/bad questions, andother sets of standardized answers. Also, a spelling board may beincluded where a full alphabet of input choices 208 are displayed,allowing users to spell out answers (as shown in co-pendingapplications). The spelling board may also include numbers, punctuation,backspace, blank space, and other alphanumeric characters.

As disclosed in co-pending applications, custom boards can also beentered by selecting “custom” from the board selection drop-down menu214. As will be disclosed further below, “suggestion mode” can also beselected for a given question through the board selection drop-down menu214.

As also shown in FIG. 2, users can selectively use a physics mode fromthe physics selection drop-down menu 216. As shown, a standard physicsmode has been selected, but users can choose ice mode where the pointer210 slides around on the target board as if it were frictionless ice. Agravity mode is configured to pull the pointer 210 back to a locationsubstantially near a center of the input choice set (i.e. center screen)as if by simulated gravity. In a heavy mode the pointer 210 hassubstantially higher mass than in standard mode and thus is harder forusers to collectively move. In a barrier mode, a set of physicalbarriers block a direct path to the input choices 208, forcing users tocollaboratively guide the pointer 210 around barriers to reach the inputchoices 208.

As also shown in FIG. 2, the display interface 200 includes the chatwindow 218 that allows users to exchange messages by typing in the chatinput box 220. Also included is the list of current members who are partof the group and thus enabled to ask questions and collaborativelyprovide control over the pointer 210.

Because users enter this group display interface 200 from a lobbydisplay interface where the user can choose from among a plurality ofavailable groups or swarms, the name of the current group (swarm) isalso displayed. In addition, users can invite their friends to thisgroup by clicking on the invite button 226 includes in the communicationmenu 212. In the current embodiments, these invites can leverageexisting social networks such as Facebook® friends and Twitter®followers. Also included in the interface of the current embodiment isthe statistics display 224 that gives the user of this instance of thesoftware (on this computing device 104) a listing of his personalstatistics including his score, credits, synchronicity value, the numberof rounds he has participated in, and the number of questions he hasasked the swarm.

When an exemplary question is entered by one of the users in the group,the question is sent by the CIA on that user's computing device 104 tothe CCS 102. If the CCS 102 software determines that the question isvalid, the question is then sent to all the users in the group so thatit appears substantially simultaneously on the display interface of eachof the computing devices 104. In a current embodiment, the questionappears in a large box at the top of the target board. Then a“3”-“2”-“1” countdown timer appears at the center of the target board,notifying users get ready for the collaborative answer process, orsession, to begin. The display interface (having received instructionsfrom the CCS 102) then displays a graphical “GO” and the users will thencollaboratively control the motion of the pointer 210, guiding ittowards whichever input choice 208 best satisfies the collaborative willof the group as emergent from the real-time swarm intelligence.

Each answer session is generally limited in total time by the underlyingsoftware of the present system 100, for example giving the swarm 60seconds to converge upon an answer through the collaborative motion ofthe pointer 210. This time pressure is deliberate, for it inspires usersto employ their gut instincts and intuitions rather than overthinkingthe question.

To support the use of time-pressure, the countdown clock 304 isdisplayed on a group display interface 300 of each user (as shown belowin FIG. 3), the timing of the plurality of countdown clocks 304coordinated by handshaking signals from the CCS 102. If the pointer 210does not reach the target within the allotted 60 seconds, the system 100determines that the collaboration is a failure, and sends a failureindication to the CIA of each computing device 104. In some embodiments,in response to receiving the failure indication the CIA terminating userinput and displaying the words “brain freeze!” on the group interface.In addition, in response to receiving the failure indication all userscould lose a number of points and/or credits for the collective failureof the group to guide the pointer 210 to a target.

The system 100 is configured to determine that a target is achieved whenthe group successfully positions the pointer 210 over one input choice208 for more than the threshold period of time. When the group targetsone input choice 208, the target is displayed on the CIA screens of allthe users as the answer to the question. Also displayed may bestatistics for that answer as shown below in FIG. 4, such as the groupcohesiveness score and the user synchronicity value, as previouslydescribed in related application Ser. No. 14/708,038. Also displayed maybe points and/or credits awarded for the current user's participation inthe emergent answer, as shown in FIG. 4.

Referring next to FIG. 3, shown is the exemplary group display interface300 of one user at a point in time during a collaboration session, i.e.after the question has been received by the computing devices 104 butbefore the collaboration session has ended. Shown are the group name204, the target area 206, the plurality of input choices 208, thepointer 210, the communication menu 212, the chat window 218, the chatinput box 220, the current member list 222, the statistics display 224,the invite button 226, a question display 302, a countdown clock 304,and a magnet icon 306.

As shown in FIG. 3, the basic layout of the display interface 300 issimilar to FIG. 2. In FIG. 3, in the target area 206 the prompt bar 202,the ask button 228, the board selection drop-down menu 214, and thephysics selection drop-down menu 216 have been replaced by the questiondisplay 302. The question display 302 appears substantiallysimultaneously upon the screens of the computers of all users in theswarm. Also displayed on the target area 206 are the set of inputchoices 208 from which the users are being asked to collaborativelyselect from. In this case the question is—“What movie should we seetonight?” and the input choices 208 include five movie names: “Jaws”,“Gremlins”, “Stand By Me”, “Indiana Jones”, and “Twister” along with asixth input choice 208, “Bad Question”. In many embodiments, the BadQuestion choice is automatically included in the input choices 208 bythe CCS 102, allowing the swarm to collectively reject the question.This allows the group not to waste time on incoherent or undesirablequestions.

After the question and input choices 208 appear on the displayinterfaces of the group members, the “3”-“2”-“1” countdown timer appears(not shown) to signal the start of the current session. When the sessionbegins, the users are now enabled to provide user input to the pointer210, guiding it towards one of the input choices 208. As the sessiontime progresses, the 60 second countdown clock 304 counts down, applyingtime pressure to the group. In FIG. 3, the countdown clock 304 is shownat 0:51, indicating that 51 seconds remain in the current session.During the current session, group members may also be inputting messagesvia text using the chat window 218, and/or may be chatting with asimultaneously enabled group voice chat. This allows interpersonalcommunication during the session.

As disclosed in the co-pending applications which have been incorporatedby reference, each user is enabled to apply forces upon the pointer 210to convey his individual intent as to how the pointer 210 should move atany moment in time. The displayed motion of the pointer 210, however, isnot a reflection of that user's individual input but a reflection of thecollectively combined group input from the entire swarm of users. Asdisclosed in co-pending applications, the collective input from theplurality of users can be such that each user's input imparts an equallyweighted contribution to the total force applied to the pointer 210. Insome embodiments, weighting factors are used to give the input forcefrom some users a higher contribution as compared to other users. Aswill be described later in this document, novel methods of adjusting theweighting factors have been developed such that computationalconfiguration of swarms can be dynamically changed over time by theunderlying software running on the CCS 102, optimizing the collaborativeperformance of a given group based on the historical performance of itsmembers.

As disclosed in the co-pending applications which have been incorporatedby reference, each user is enabled to apply forces upon the pointer 210using one of a variety of innovative methods. In one preferredembodiment, disclosed in application Ser. No. 14/473,768, each usercontrols the graphical magnet icon 306 by manipulating a mouse,touchpad, touchscreen, tilt interface, or other provided user-interfacemethod. In one such embodiment, as the user moves his mouse cursorwithin a threshold distance of the pointer 210, it turns into the magneticon 306 that grows larger in size, the closer to the pointer 210 themouse is positioned. The larger size indicates a larger force. Therelative position of the magnet icon 306, which always orients itselftowards a center of the pointer 210 under software control, indicatesthe direction of pull that user wants to impart on the pointer 210. Inthis way, a user can intuitively impart of force of a selectablemagnitude and direction upon the pointer 210.

In other embodiments, the user can tilt the portable computing device104 to convey a desired magnitude and direction. In such embodiments,the magnet icon 306 or other graphical indicator is displayed toindicate the imparted force. In some such embodiments, the user mustalso tap the screen while tilting the computing device 104, thefrequency of the taps causing a higher force to be applied. This uniqueuse of a combined tilt and tap methodology is highly effective, for itenables one handed input from users on small mobile devices. It alsoenables the ease of tilting, but avoids it feeling too passive by alsorequiring frequent tapping. In many such embodiments, the maximum forceis applied for only a short time following each tap (for example 0.5seconds) and then fades away over a subsequent period of time (forexample 3 to 5 seconds). The displayed magnet icon 306 shrinks and fadesaway along with the force magnitude. This is a highly intuitiveinterface and requires that a user repeatedly tap to maintain amaximally applied force upon the pointer 210. This is an innovativeimplementation, for it has been found that requiring frequent tappingbetter engages the user in the collaborative experience when the tiltinterface is used.

In other embodiments the user is enabled to swipe across a touchscreendisplay to indicate the magnitude and direction of the force the userdesires to apply to the pointer 210. In many such embodiments the magneticon 306 is displayed, indicative of the magnitude and directionconveyed by the swipe. In such embodiments, the swipe force is appliedfor only a short time (for example 0.5 seconds) and then fades away overa period of time (for example 3 to 5 seconds). The magnet shrinks andfades away along with the force magnitude. This is a highly intuitiveinterface and requires that the user repeatedly swipe the screen tomaintain a maximally applied force upon the pointer 210. This is aninnovative implementation, for requiring frequent and repeated swipesbetter engages the user in the collaborative experience when the swipeinterface is used.

As disclosed in the co-pending applications, the CCS 102 softwarecollects input from the plurality of users, computes a resultant motionof the pointer 210, and communicates the resultant motion of the pointer210 to each CIA of the plurality of computing devices 104. The CCS 102software also determines if the pointer 210 location is successfullytargeting one input choice 208 for more than the threshold amount oftime. If so, the CCS 102 software determines that the question isanswered and communicates the targeted input choice 208 to all membersof the group such that it is substantially simultaneously displayed uponthe display interface of each computing device 104 included in thegroup.

In this way, the system 100 of the present invention enables groups ofnetworked users to collaboratively control the graphical pointer 210 inresponse to one or more questions posed by members of group. Morespecifically, embodiments of the current system 100 enable each of theplurality of users to view on a screen of their own individual computingdevices 104, a representation of the pointer 210 and the target board,and enable each of said users to convey the user intent (also referredto as the user intent value) as to the desired direction (and optionallymagnitude) of motion that user wants the pointer 210 to move so as toselect one of the input choices displayed on the target area. The userintent is represented as a user intent vector. The user intent vectorcan be conveyed by the user, for example, by tilting his computingdevice 104 in the desired direction, swiping the screen in a desireddirection, or positioning the mouse such that the graphical magnet icon306 pulls on the pointer 210 with a desired direction.

In some embodiments, eye tracking hardware and software are included inthe computing device 104, for example the eye tracking hardware andsoftware disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 7,429,108 to the present inventor.The CIA is configured to operate the eye tracking hardware and softwareand receive input from the eye tracking hardware are software. In thecurrent innovation, a user's gaze is tracked by the CIA and used tocompute the user intent vector that represents the user's desired motionof the pointer 210, which is communicated to the CCS 102 software. Morespecifically, the user's gaze defines a location with respect to thepointer 210. The vector between the location and the center of thepointer 210 is then used by the CIA to compute the magnitude anddirection of the user intent vector. In this way, the user can simplylook towards a direction that he desires the pointer 210 to move, andthe user intent vector is computed by the CIA and sent to the CCS 102software by the CIA. In some instances the magnet icon 306 or othergraphical element is displayed to represent the user intent vector onthe display. In this way, the user can participate in the collaborativeswarm intelligence experience using a hands-free method.

In some embodiments, a brain-computer interface (sometimes called amind-machine interface, direct neural interface, synthetic telepathyinterface, or a brain-machine interface), is employed to collect theuser input of one or more users in the swarm. In some such embodiments,the user's brain-waves are detected by the brain-computer interface ashe or she watches the pointer 210 move upon his screen. A calibrationsession is often required to correlate detected brain activity with adesired direction of motion of the pointer 210, but once thatcalibration is complete, the brain-computer interface system can be usedby the CIA to compute the user intent vector that represents that user'sdesired motion of the pointer 210 at each time-step during the session,this user intent vector being communicated to the CCS 102 software. Inthis way, the user can simply think about a direction that he desiresthe pointer 210 to move, and the user intent vector is computed and sentto the CCS 102 software by the CIA. In some instances the magnet icon306 or other graphical element is displayed to represent the user intentvector on the screen of the user's computing device 104. In this way,the user can participate in the collaborative swarm intelligence using ahands-free method.

Whatever the input method used (mouse, touchscreen, tilt, eye-tracking,or brain-tracking), the system is configured such that the user intentvector is communicated by the CIA, running on the user's computingdevice 104, to the Central Collaboration (CCS) 102. The CCS 102 collectsthe user intent vectors from the plurality of users (via their separatecomputing devices 104), and then derives a group intent vector thatrepresents the collective will of the group at that time. The groupintent vector is then used to compute an updated location of the pointer210 with respect to the target area and the input choices 208, theupdated location reflecting the collective will of the group.

In many preferred embodiments, a physical model is employed in which thepointer 210 is assigned a simulated mass and damping, each user inputrepresented as a simulated force vector. In some such embodiments, themass and damping of the pointer 210 is adjusted dynamically by thesoftware depending upon a physics mode selected by the user who askseach question by using the physics selection drop-down menu 216 shown inFIG. 2. In some such embodiments, the ice mode can be selected by theuser in which the pointer 210 glides very freely as if on ice. In somesuch embodiments, the heavy mode can be selected by the user in whichthe pointer 210 requires the collaborative pull of a large majority ofmembers of the swarm to achieve any real velocity. In some embodiments,the mass and damping are dynamically assigned by the software on the CCS102 depending upon the current size of the swarm, the larger the swarmthe higher the mass and higher the damping assigned.

Whether a physics model is used or not, the updated pointer 210 locationis then sent by the CCS 102 to each of the computing devices 104 and isused by the CIA running on each of said computing devices 104 to updatethe displayed location of the pointer 210. In this way, the plurality ofusers can watch the pointer 210 move, not based on their own individualinput, but based on the overall collective intent of the group.

As described in related U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/668,970, thegroup intent vector can be computed from the plurality of user intentvectors as a simple average, or may be computed as a weighted average inwhich some users have more influence on the resulting collective groupintent than other users. In such embodiments, the weighting of each usercan be derived based on user scores and/or user synchronicity values(also referred to as synchrony values or performance values) earnedduring prior interactions with the system 100. In such embodiments, eachuser may be assigned one or more variables that represents how his orher input should be weighted with respect to other users in the swarm.In some embodiments the variable is called the user contribution indexand is updated regularly to reflect the skill of that user in providinginput that helps the group reach a coherent collaborative response. Theuser who demonstrates a history of “constructive input” (i.e. input thatis supportive of the collective intent, will be assigned a higher usercontribution index than the user who has demonstrated a history of“destructive input” (i.e. input that is substantially resistant to thecollective intent). In this way, users are incentivized push forcollaborative consensus.

Those users who are supportive to the emerging consensus are determinedcomputationally by the CCS 102 by repeatedly comparing each user's userintent vector with the group intent vector. The more aligned that user'suser intent vector is with the direction of the group intent vector, themore collaborative that user is behaving. The further the user intentvector is from the direction of the group intent vector, the lesscollaborative the user is behaving. This level of collaboration isrepresented by the value defined herein and in the related applicationsas the user's synchrony (or synchronicity). The synchronicity value maybe an instant synchronicity value, i.e. one at a certain instant intime, or may be a session synchronicity value representing the overalluser synchronicity for one or more sessions.

The synchronicity value for each individual user is determined by theCCS 102 by repeatedly comparing the user intent received from eachcomputing device 104 (representing the user input reflecting the user'sintent to move the graphical object of the pointer 210 in a givendirection) with the group intent derived from all user intents. Thesynchronicity value of the individual user is determined but computingthe difference between the user intent and the group intent. Thesynchronicity value may be an instant value, i.e., based on a singlecomparison of the user intent to the group intent at one point in time,or may be synchronicity value over a specific period of time, e.g. anaverage of the synchronicity values over that period. Thereby, the usersynchronicity value each individual user represents at least in partthat user's contribution to the collaborative control of the at leastone graphical object.

In some embodiments, each individual's synchrony value ranges between anupper bound value and a lower bound value. In one embodiment, thesynchronicity value ranges between +1 to −1, with the value +1 (theupper bound) being assigned when the user intent vector is substantiallyaligned with the group intent vector, and with the value of −1 (thelower bound) being assigned when the user intent vector is substantiallyin the opposite direction of the group intent vector, with all valuesbetween +1 and −1 being used to represent varying degrees of alignment.For example, if the user intent vector is 90 degrees out phase with thegroup intent vector, a value of 0 is assigned, for that is halfwaybetween fully convergent and fully divergent. Thus, a skilled user isone who is able to convey his individual intent as input, but do so in acooperative manner. Such a user will maintain a positive synchrony valueduring much of the session, for he or she is being supportive of thegroup intent. A user who maintains a positive value will be awarded morepoints and be assigned a higher user contribution index than a user whodoes not.

In some embodiments, the user's synchronicity values are computed as apercentage from 0% to 100%, for that is often an easier metric for usersto understand. The session synchronicity value of 100% means the userhas been perfectly in sync with the swarm. The session synchronicityvalue of 0% means the user has been entirely out of sync with the swarm.Session synchronicity values between 0% and 100% reflect relativesynchronization with the swarm, with a 50% synchronicity value meaningthe user was neutral with respect to the swarm. This is described inmore detail later in this document.

In some embodiments, an average (or mean) synchronicity value iscomputed for the user over some number of prior questions. For example a“sync 5” synchronicity value can be computed as that user's averagesynchronicity value (also referred to as the average performance value)over the last five sessions. This is a highly useful value for itindicates how cooperative the user has been over a recent period oftime. The “sync_(—)5” synchronicity value can be used in combinationwith other time-histories, such as a “sync_(—)50” synchronicity valuewhich indicates the average synchronicity value for that user over thelast 50 sessions, in order to compute that user's weighting value in theswarm. In some embodiments, the mean synchronicity value may betime-weighted such that time steps near the end of the session timeperiod are more heavily weighted than time steps near the start of thetime period.

In some embodiments, the CCS 102 determines at least one user assessmentbased at least in part upon one of more user synchronicity values. Forexamples, one assessment may be configured to determine whether the useris categorized as “flexible” or “entrenched”. In another example, oneassessment may be configured to determine whether the user is“constructive” or “destructive”.

Referring next to FIG. 4, shown is an exemplary display interface 400 asdisplayed on the computing device 104 being used by one user of a group,shown at a moment in time after the group has successfully positionedthe pointer 210 on one of the input choices 208, selecting the inputchoice 208 as the target, thereby collaboratively choosing the answer.Shown are the group name 204, the target area 206, the plurality ofinput choices 208, the communication menu 212, the chat window 218, thechat input box 220, the current member list 222, the statistics display224, the invite button 226, a prefix text 402, a target text 404, agroup cohesiveness score indication 406, a session synchronicity valuescore indication 408, a points indication 410, an answer window 412, ananswer options tab 414, a replay swarm icon 416, and a Tweet answer icon418.

In this instance, the target is “Gremlins”, reflecting the swarm'scollaborative will in response to the posed question: “What movie shouldwe see tonight?” As shown in FIG. 4, the target is graphically displayedto each user on the screen of his or her computing device 104 (ascontrolled by the CIA software running on that device 104). In theembodiment shown, the graphical display includes the answer window 412including the prefix text 402 “UNUM says:” along with the chosen target:“Gremlins”.

In some embodiments, the answer is also displayed in the chat window218, as if communicated by the personified entity “UNUM” itself. Thisgives the swarm intelligence a feeling of personality and presence.

Also displayed in the answer window 412 is one or more statisticscomputed by the CCS 102 software. The statistics may reflect theperformance of the group as a whole or reflect the performance of theparticular user of that computing device 104. In this example, the groupcohesiveness score indication 406, reflecting the synchronicity of thegroup, is shown of 84%, which indicates that the group was 84% alignedin their imparted motion of the pointer 210. The group cohesivenessscore indication 406 includes the text “GROUP SYNC:” The groupcohesiveness score of 84% shows strong convergence of group members,reflecting that the swarm intelligence spoke with high “conviction” whenanswering this question. A low group cohesiveness score would reflect alow conviction for the swarm intelligence. In some embodiments the groupcohesiveness score may be repeatedly reported to and repeatedlydisplayed by each of the computing devices 104, for example during thesession.

Related application Ser. No. 14/708,038 discloses some methods ofcomputing the group cohesiveness score, such as to compute a runningaverage of the absolute value (i.e. magnitude) of the group intentvector over time. The group cohesiveness score may have an upper boundand a lower bound, wherein a group cohesiveness score at the upper boundindicates that the plurality of real-time user intents are substantiallyaligned with each other, and a group cohesiveness score at the lowerbound indicates that the plurality of real-time user intent values aresubstantially misaligned with each other. In one embodiment, the lowerbound is essentially 0, as the summation of the user intent vectors,being opposite (exactly misaligned), cancel each other out.

In some embodiments, the CCS 102 determines at least one groupassessment based at least in part upon one of more group cohesivenessscores. For examples, one assessment may be configured to determinewhether the group is categorized as “flexible” or “entrenched”.

The group cohesiveness score may be repeatedly calculated by the CCS 102during the session and repeatedly received by each of the portablecomputing devices 104.

In another embodiment, the real-time user intent values are determinedto be substantially aligned with each other (i.e. at or near the upperbound) when their vector directions are substantially the same in atleast a plane. The real-time user intent values are determined to besubstantially misaligned with each other (i.e. at or near the lowerbound) when a summation of their vector directions substantially canceleach other out, resulting in a near zero resultant.

Also displayed in the answer window 412 is the session usersynchronicity value score indication 408. The session user synchronicityvalue is a statistical indication of how well the particular user ofthis computing device 104 was aligned in his input with the swarm as awhole. The session synchronicity value score indication 408 includes thetext “YOUR SYNC:” and value of 91%. In this case, the user was veryhighly aligned, achieving a 91% synchronicity value.

Also displayed in the answer window 412 is the points indication 410,indicating the number of points earned by this user as a result of hisor her participation during the session. The user in this session hasearned 241 points, as shown in the points indication 410. The pointsindication 410 also includes the text “POINTS:”

Users earn more points (or credits) as a result of being constructivelycollaborative, helping the swarm reach a meaningful consensus. Usersearn less points (credits) as a result of being non-collaborative(obstructive), blocking the swarm from finding a meaningful consensus.In the case where the swarm cannot answer a question within the allottedtime because consensus is never reached, all users lose points(credits). This innovative scoring method encourages participants to becollaborative rather than obstructionist, thereby improving theperformance of the swarm intelligence. This imposes a philosophicalsituation often referred to as a Prisoner's Dilemma and structures ituniquely such that group collaboration and consensus trumps groupstagnation and entrenchment. In this way, the present invention helpsgroups to find common ground.

Also displayed is the answer options tab 414 which gives users optionsrelated to the answer that was just reached by the swarm. The user canselectively Tweet® the answer by selecting the Tweet answer icon 418.This triggers a routine within the CIA that sends a Tweet request to theCCS 102 software, which then sends an automated Tweet to Twitter. TheTweet includes the question and the selected answer. The Tweet alsoincludes a numerical indication of the number of users who participatedin answering the given question, thus conveying the size of the swarmintelligence which produced this Tweet. The Tweet also includes ahashtag, for example “#UNUMsays”, as well as an indication of the groupcohesiveness score. In this way, the swarm intelligence system comprisedof dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of individual minds working asone can is given a unique voice as a social media entity. Enablingcollaborative groups to ask questions, answer questions, and voice theswarm's collaborative intent over Twitter as a unique entity is highlyunique and appealing to users. In some embodiments, the decision toTweet an answer is posed by the software to the swarm. A questionappears, e.g. “Should we tweet this?”, and a set of answers appear“yes”, “no”, etc. If the group picks “yes” or an equivalent, the swarmintelligence has decided to send its own Tweet. In this way, theinvention described herein enables the formation of a swarmintelligence, enables that swarm intelligence to answer questions,enables that swarm intelligence to consider the answer that emerges anddecide if that swarm intelligence wants to Tweet the answer publically.

As also included in the answer options tab 414, each individual user canselect a replay swarm icon 416. Upon selection of the replay swarm icon416, the session resulting in the current answer is replayed on thedisplay. The session replay is unique in that it displays an indicationof the input of all users in the group at the same time (i.e. the swarminput), giving insight into how the swarm converged upon the collectiveanswer. The video of the swarm input is displayed in high speed(generally 2× to 5× the speed of the real session). This saves timewhile also conveying a more intuitive display of swarm activity, for thehigh speed motion of the swarm input indicates the central tendenciesmore effectively than a real-time display.

Referring next to FIG. 5, a frame of an exemplary session replay video500 is shown. Shown are the target area 206, the plurality of inputchoices 208, the question display 302, and the plurality of magnet icons306.

As shown in FIG. 5, the session replay includes the question asked, theinput choices 208, and the graphical indication of the trajectory takenby the pointer 210 during the answer period. Also displayed is thegraphical indication of the input provided by each user of the swarm ateach time-step during the answer session. In this instance, thegraphical magnet icon 306 is displayed for each user, the size andorientation of each magnet icon 306 with respect to the pointer 210indicating the magnitude and direction of that user's user intent vector(magnitude and direction) upon the pointer 210 at each given moment intime. In this example, 8 users were participating in the swarm,collaboratively moving the pointer 210 to an answer. This method isscalable to much larger numbers of users.

In some embodiments where hundreds or even thousands of users areparticipating at the same time, other innovative methods are employed tomake the replay coherent. In one such embodiment, when the number ofmagnet icons 306 exceeds a threshold, they are grouped and averaged, forexample showing one composite magnet icon 306 to represent every groupof 10 in the swarm. In this way, a swarm with 800 users can berepresented by a replay display of 80 magnet icons 306. This is highlyinformative to the user, conveying the central tendency of the swarmwithout overwhelming the display with too many magnet icons 306 (orother graphical indicators). In some embodiments, the user can selectthe replay speed. In some embodiments, the software running on the localuser's computing device 104 can be configured to show all magnet icons306 in the replay as a uniform color except for the magnet icon 306representing the time-history of that particular user's input. For thatuser, the magnet icon 306 can be shown as an alternate color with visualcontrast. In this way, the user can observe the swarm of many magneticons 306 as the history of the session is replayed and identify his orher own magnet icon* among the swarm of many magnet icons 306 becausehis own magnet icon 306 is displayed in the alternate color. To enablethis, the local software on each computing device 104 is configured toidentify which magnet icon 306 in the replay is associated with the userof that computing device 104. Such identification can be achieved byassociating each magnet icon 306 in the replay with a unique user IDvalue stored in memory.

As disclosed herein, the present invention employs a number of inventivesystems and/or methods for dynamically modifying the configuration ofthe group to optimize the performance of that group over time. Morespecifically, each group is a collection of intelligent members (users)that are networked together in real-time, each of them providingcollaborative input that's numerically combined into a singularintelligent output. To optimize the performance of a given group, anumber of approaches have been developed, which can be used alone or incombination.

A first approach is to dynamically modify the swarm population bypurging the swarm of one or more of its currently low-performing members(the input from said members determined to be substantially out of syncwith collaborative will of the swarm, i.e. having a low synchronicityvalue) and/or setting a statistical threshold associated with a givengroup that bars non-compatible and/or low-performing members fromjoining that given group. These techniques modulate the make-up thegroup in real time, by filtering the addition of new members and/ormoderating the ejection of low-performing members, all with the goal ofmaintaining a group configuration that behaves with high levels ofcollaboration.

A second approach is to dynamically modify the connection strengthswithin a given group population by adjusting the weighting assigned tothe inputs from each individual user, the weightings assigned to eachgiven user being modulated to improve overall group performance. Morespecifically, the CCS 102 software is selectively configured to increasethe weighting of inputs from high-performing members of the group interms of their collaborative behavior, and decrease the weightings ofinputs from low-performing members of a swarm in terms of theircollaborative behavior.

In order for the CCS 102 to purge users from the group, institutethresholds that limit entry into the group, and/or dynamically modifythe connection strengths within the group, the CCS 102 must quantifyswarm performance as well as user performance in the context ofcollaboration, for determining levels of collaborative performance isused as the basis for dynamic modulation of the group. To perform suchquantification, the group cohesiveness score (representing the groupsynchrony) and the user synchronicity value (synchrony value) is used.

In the context of the collaborative swarming inventions disclosedherein, and as disclosed in the related applications, “synchrony” isdefined as a statistical measure of collaboration within and amongmembers of a real-time networked swarm. More specifically, “synchrony”is determined computationally by the software running on the CCS 102based on the degree of alignment (in direction and magnitude) among theuser input collected from all member of a swarm during a response.Because the degree of alignment changes at every time-step, the softwarerunning on the CCS 102 is configured to integrate over the responseperiod, producing time-weighted average. In this way, the synchronycomputed during a single question/answer session is the time-weightedaverage of the instantaneous synchrony (i.e. alignment among inputvectors) across all time steps.

Further, the two types of synchrony are computed by the CCS 102 softwareand communicated to each of the peers: group synchrony and individualsynchrony. These are described in detail as follows:

As previously disclosed in application Ser. No. 14/708,038, the groupcohesiveness score is an indication of the collaborative coordination ofthe group as it answers a question or completes a task, derived bycomputing the degree of alignment among the full set of user intentvectors from all participating users in the group, integrated across alltime steps of the session. In many current embodiments, this value isexpressed as a percentage between 0% and 100%. In many embodiments, thecomputation is configured such that if, in theory, all of the users of agroup coordinate perfectly during the session (i.e. all users impartinput vectors of the exact same magnitude and direction at every timestep across the session), that group would deemed to have a groupcohesiveness score of 100%. In practice, this rarely happens. Ideally,the outcome of the session is one where the central tendency of thegroup leads to a coherent answer through the motion of the pointer 210.This generally translates into a group cohesiveness score between 65%and 90%. Conversely, if all members of the group are pulling in theexact opposite directions (i.e. all user intent vectors perfectly cancelout), the pointer 210 will not move at all, resulting in a stalemate.This translates into the group cohesiveness score of 0%. In practice,this too rarely happens. That said, the inventive system stillidentifies unproductive swarms where the pointer 210 sputters, moving inone direction and another, but never finds enough consensus to drive thepointer 210 to the answer. Such sessions generally have the groupcohesiveness score of between 10% and 35%.

Thus, an effective group will have the high group cohesiveness score(>65%), while an ineffective group, unable to converge on answers willhave the low group cohesiveness score (<35%). Groups with the groupcohesiveness score of around 50% will generally converge on coherentanswers, but the group's “conviction” in those answers will not be asstrong as sessions with the higher group cohesiveness score. Toencourage convergent groups, the CCS 102 software is configured tomeasure and report the group cohesiveness score to every user afterevery session (i.e. every collaborative answer). By giving users adirect and easy to understand measure of the collaborative coherence ofthe group, they can understand if the group is performing well togetherand adapt their actions accordingly. Further, when points (or credits)are awarded to members of the group, the points are scaled by groupcohesiveness score. Thus all users are rewarded when the group showshigh synchrony (i.e. strong collaboration) by having a high groupcohesiveness score, for they were able to converge on an answer withhigh conviction. By rewarding individual members for the level ofcooperation achieved across the group, all users are incentivized toseek common ground, guiding the pointer 210 to the answer that bestsatisfies the collaborative will of the entire group. This is a verypowerful and important method of driving coherent group.

Of course some users may be deliberately divergent, while other userswill be contributing greatly to the overall cohesion of the swarm. Toquantify these differences, we compute the user synchronicity value forevery user. Like the group cohesiveness score indicating the degree ofgroup synchrony, the user synchronicity value is a time-weighted averagethat's integrated across all time steps, but in this case thesynchronicity value is a measurement of how well aligned a single useris with respect to the group as a whole. Because the synchronicity valueis personalized for each user, the CCS 102 software must compute theuser synchronicity value independently for each member in the group,indicating how well aligned that user's input vector was with theoverall group input vector. The user with the high synchronicity value(>65%) during the session is deemed to have been highly supportive ofthe resulting consensus, contributing to the emergent response.Conversely, the user with the low synchronicity value (<35%) during thesession is deemed by the software to be obstructionist, standing in theway of compromise and consensus.

To encourage constructive behavior from participants, the CCS 102software measures and reports each user synchronicity value after eachsession sending each user their personal user synchronicity value fordisplay on their own computing device 104. In addition, when points (orcredits) are awarded to the user, the number of credits or points isbased at least in part on that user's user synchronicity value and/orthe group cohesiveness score. In some current embodiments of theinvention, user points (or credits) are awarded based 60% on that user'suser synchronicity value and 40% on the overall group cohesivenessscore. In this way, users are incentivized to perform collaboratively asindividuals, while also being incentivized to push the swarm to behavecollaboratively overall. This is highly effective.

Referring next to FIG. 6, an exemplary display interface 600 is shownduring a session determining whether to eject a specific member from thegroup. Shown are the prompt bar 202, the group name 204, the target area206, the plurality of input choices 208, the pointer 210, thecommunication menu 212, the chat window 218, the chat input box 220, thecurrent member list 222, the statistics display 224, the invite button226, the question display 302, the countdown clock 304, the magnet icon306, and the flag icon 602.

Each group is configured to be able to eject or purge members of thegroup who consistently show low user synchronicity values over a certainnumber of sessions. In current embodiments, the determination is basedon a user's average user synchronicity value over the last 5 sessions(referred to herein as that user's “Sync 5” synchronicity value) In thetrue spirit of collaboration, “banishment decisions” are posed to thegroup itself, which uses collaborative motion of the pointer 210 todecide if an identified low-performing member should be banned for lowperformance. The benefit of using the Sync_(—)5 user synchronicity valueis that users are not punished for a single divergent answer, or even afew divergent answers, but a string of them. This helps to differentiatebetween users who just disagree with a single question versus users whoare deliberately being obstructionist to the swarm's overallperformance. In some embodiments, the Sync_(—)50 is also computed, whichis the time average of the user's user synchronicity value over the last50 session. This value is used in combination with the Sync_(—)5 usersynchronicity value when ejecting users from the group. This allowsusers to rewarded for long-term collaborative behavior. The Sync_(—)5user synchronicity value and the Sync_(—)50 user synchronicity value areeffective, but obviously values averaged over a different number ofsessions could be used by the CCS 102 software. The key is for thesoftware to assess a time-history of the user's user synchronicityvalues when determining banishment (or suggested banishment). Similarly,entry into the group can require that the user's Sync_(—)5 usersynchronicity value and/or Sync_(—)50 user synchronicity value be abovea defined threshold. This allows some groups to be highly selective,only allowing users with a track record of being collaborative members.

In fact, the present invention enables the user to create a new group bygiving the new group a name, assigning it a theme, and including adescription of the new group's intent and/or philosophy. In addition,the user creating the new group can assign an entry threshold value thatindicates a level of historic user synchronicity value that anindividual user must attain to gain access to the new group. In someembodiments the Sync_(—)50 user synchronicity value is used. In suchembodiments, the group creator might indicate that only users with aSync_(—)50 greater than 35% can enter the new group. This ensures thatdeliberately obstructionist users (based on historical performance)can't enter. The system of the present invention enables a virtual lobbyinterface 800 included in the display interface, the virtual lobbyinterface 800 indicating a plurality of distinct groups for users tojoin, each of the plurality of groups having a different entrythreshold, or optionally no entry threshold. This enables selectivegroups and open groups. Users who want to have access to selectivegroups are thereby motivated to perform collaboratively when using thesystem.

Shown in FIG. 6 is an exemplary user display interface that supports thepurging methodology described herein. In this example, the CCS 102 hasidentified that a member of the group has been assigned a Sync_(—)5 usersynchronicity value below the pre-assigned threshold (for example, auser synchronicity value below 20%). In response to this automatedtrigger, the CCS 102 software sends an automated question to all membersof the group, asking if the low-performing member should be purged fromthe group.

More specifically, the question automatically posed to the group by theCCS 102 includes the unique user name of the low performing member(“JaneDoe” in the exemplary session) and an indication of the thresholdthat was fallen below (“Sync_(—)5<20%” in the exemplary session). Themembers of the group then engage in the collaborative session, providinginput in real-time that is numerically combined into the group intent.In this example, the CCS 102 software automatically sent each member ofthe swarm a target area including the input choices 208. In this examplethe set of six input choices 208 includes: “eject”, “pardon”,“probation”, “eject”, “pardon”, and “bad question”. The users thencollaboratively provide input, enabling the swarm intelligence toconverge on the target answer. If the answer is “eject”, the identifieduser is ejected from the swarm and banned from re-joining the group foreither a set amount of time, a set number of sessions, or until his orher user synchronicity value rises above the threshold level. Thevirtual lobby interface 800 is described further below in FIG. 8. If theanswer is “pardon”, the identified user is excused of his divergentbehavior and is allowed to remain in the group at the present time. Ifthe answer is “probation”, the CCS 102 software is configured to monitorthe future user synchronicity values for that user, giving that user adefined amount of time (or defined number of session) to raise his usersynchronicity value above the defined threshold. For example, the usermay be required to get his Sync_(—)5 user synchronicity value above 35%within the next ten sessions, or ejection of that user willautomatically be executed by the CCS 102.

In some embodiments, one user of the group can initiate a purge sessionby clicking on a particular user's username (as shown in the list ofcurrent members) and selecting a “purge user” option from the boardselection drop-down menu 214. In preferred embodiments, this can only bedone if the user synchronicity value or other measure of performance ofthe user to be purged has fallen below the threshold value. In some suchembodiments, the flag icon 602 appears in the list of current membersnext to the usernames of users whose user synchronicity value fell belowsaid threshold, thus alerting the other members of the low performance,and alerting the other users that such “red flagged” users can beselected for possible purge question put to the group. As shown in FIG.6, in the list of members the user JaneDoe has the flag icon 602 shownnext to the username, indicating that user JaneDoe has the usersynchronicity value below the threshold.

In some embodiments, the CCS 102 does a periodic purge that does notidentify the specific username of the potentially purged user whenposing the question to the group. For example, in one such embodiment,the CCS 102 automatically sends the question—“Should we purge the lowestperforming member of the group?” The group must now respond. The dynamicis interesting because members of the group do not know if they are thelowest performing member. In some such embodiments, such purge sessionsare triggered at regular time intervals. In other embodiments, suchpurge sessions are triggered when the group cohesiveness score fallsbelow a threshold. This is highly effective because the groupcohesiveness score is a representation of how collaboratively effectivethe group is. If the group is not being highly collaborative, asindicated by the low group cohesiveness score, it's a very effectivetechnique for the CCS 102 to ask the group if it wants to eject itslowest performing member as a means of boosting performance. In largegroup, the CCS 102 can be configured to ask “Should we PURGE the lowestperforming 10% of our members?” This enables the swarm to purge manymembers at once if they are not performing well. Again, the dynamic isquite interesting and engaging for users because they don't know if theyare among the lowest 10% that will get purged. In this way, the swarmcan self-moderate itself, enhancing its own configuration for optimalperformance, with assistance from the automated agent of the CCS 102software.

Referring next to FIG. 7, an exemplary display interface 700 is shownduring a session determining whether to allow a specific member to jointhe group. Shown are the prompt bar 202, the group name 204, the targetarea 206, the plurality of input choices 208, the pointer 210, thecommunication menu 212, the chat window 218, the chat input box 220, thecurrent member list 222, the statistics display 224, the invite button226, the question display 302, the countdown clock 304, and the magneticon 306.

In some embodiments of the present invention, the collaborative group isnot only empowered to make collaborative decisions about ejection fromthe swarm, but is empowered to make collaborative decisions about entryinto the swarm. In such embodiments, the swarm can be configured whencreated to be “swarm admit only” in which case, users must becollaboratively granted access. This designation (or similardesignation) is displayed in the system lobby display. If the swam isidentified in the lobby display as “swarm admit only”, the user may notimmediately join the group, but the user may select a displayed buttonmarked “knock”. When a user knocks on a swarm (i.e. selects the knockbutton, whereby an indication is sent to the CCS 102 indicating thatthat user is requesting to join that particular group), the CCS 102software is alerted that the user wants to enter that particular swarmand because that swarm is listed in the CCS 102 database as being “swarmadmit only”, the CCS 102 software executes a routine that puts theadmission question to the group. The swarm intelligence can thencollaboratively decide if it wants to allow the given user to join, orreject the request for admission.

As shown in FIG. 7, the CCS 102 has received an indication that the userBIG_DAVE has indicated that he or she wishes to enter the group“Swarm_(—)001”. Further, responsively the CCS 102 determined that thegroup Swarm_(—)001 has been configured as “swarm admit only”. Inresponse to these conditions, the CCS 102 performs the automated routinein which it sends the question to the current users in groupSwarm_(—)001, asking if the user should be allowed to join the swarm.

More specifically, the question automatically posed to the swarm by theCCS 102 includes the unique username of the user requesting entry intothe group (“BIG_DAVE”) as well as an indication of that user'shistorical collaborative performance (“Sync_(—)50=68%”). In someembodiments, a user rank is used instead of the user synchronicityvalue, indicating where that user's performance falls within the overallspectrum of users of the system. In some embodiments the CCS 102determines an ordered rank of a plurality of users based at least inpart upon at least one synchronicity value associated with each of theplurality of users. In some embodiments the CCS 102 determines anordered rank of a plurality of groups based at least in part upon atleast one group cohesiveness score associated with each of the groups

In addition, the CCS 102 might provide a link to further stats orinformation about that user, possibly including a link to his or herFacebook® page or Twitter® handle. In this way, the members of the swarmcan assess who this user is, and how collaborative this user has beenduring his prior participation within the system.

The current members of the swarm SWARM_(—)001 then engage in thecollaborative control process, providing input in real-time that isnumerically combined into a singular intent of the swarm intelligence,as shown by FIG. 7. In this example, the CCS 102 software automaticallysent each member of the swarm a set of input choices 208 related toallowing user entry to the group. In this example the set of six inputchoices 208 includes: “no”, “yes”, “not now”, “yes”, “no” and, “badquestion”. The users then collaboratively engage, enabling the swarmintelligence to converge on the target input choice 208. If the targetis “yes”, the identified user is granted entry into the swarm. If thetarget is “no” the identified user is not granted entry into the swarm.If the target is “not now” the identified user is informed by the CCS102 software: “maybe . . . try again later.” In this way, thecollaborative swarm intelligence can control its own population,deciding who is granted entry and who is rejected. This, combined withthe ability to purge members, allows for a dynamic optimization of theswarm's overall makeup, both through automated processes and by directswarm intelligence control.

As also disclosed herein, the swarm can be configured to dynamicallyadjust the group configuration, not only by selectively ejecting usersfrom the swarm and/or admitting members to the swarm but by adjustingthe relative weighting of the input received from current members of theswarm. More specifically, in some embodiments, dynamic algorithms areused to increase the weighting that certain users have upon thecollective pull of the pointer 210, while decreasing the weighting thatother users have upon the collective pull of the pointer 210.

More specifically, the CCS 102 can be configured to compute and store aweighting value for each user, based on that user's historic usersynchronicity values. Users who show a time history of high usersynchronicity values are assigned a positive weighting value, whileusers who show a time history of low user synchronicity values areassigned a negative weighting value. These weighting values are updatedregularly by the CCS 102, ideally after each session that a userparticipates in, because the user's performance during that sessionlikely resulted in a change in his historic user synchronicity value. Inthis way, the swarm intelligence is adapted over time, strengthening theconnections (i.e. input weighting) with respect to the morecollaborative users in the swarm, and weakening the connections withrespect to the less collaborative users in the swarm. Hence, thecollaborative swarm is dynamically adjusted in an innovative mannerreminiscent of the neural networks within biological brains thatoptimizes its intelligence by adjusting connections.

In one specific embodiment, the CCS 102 computes the Sync_(—)5 usersynchronicity value and Sync_(—)50 user synchronicity value for eachuser, based on the user's performance during multiple sessions. Forexample, the user might have participated in 50 sessions as a member ofmultiple groups. Thus the Sync_(—)50 user synchronicity value that isstored and updated on the CCS 102 (and related database) isswarm-independent.

When inside a particular group, the CCS 102 computes the weighting valuefor that user based on his Sync_(—)5 user synchronicity value andSync_(—)50 user synchronicity value (reflecting the user's usersynchronicity value over the last 5 and last 50 questions respectively).In one such embodiment, the weighting value is computed as follows:

User Weighting=0.04*(Sync_(—)50−50)/50+0.06*(Sync_(—)5−50)/50

This equation assigns a weighting value that's 40% dependent upon theuser's Sync_(—)50 user synchronicity value and 60% dependent upon theuser's Sync_(—)5 user synchronicity value, thereby giving greaterimportance to the user's more recent behavior, but still considering thelonger term behavior of that user. Further, this equation is structuredmathematically such that users who earn user synchronicity values at ornear a neutral performance level of 50% have no change in weighting, andusers who have user synchronicity values much higher than the neutralvalue of 50% have a higher weighting, this higher weighting valuetopping out at +10%. Users with user synchronicity values substantiallybelow 50% are computed to have a negative weighting value that maxes outat −10%.

In this way, across a population of users, most will have close to theneutral weighting value at or around 0%, but those users who have showna very high capacity for collaborative behavior can earn a boost intheir weighting value up to +10%, while those who have shown a hightendency for obstruction can be penalized with a drop in their weightingvalue of as much as −10%. While the spread from −10% to +10% does notseem that significant, it means that a high performing user will easilyoverpower the input from a low performing user, tipping the convergetrend towards the more collaborative members. (It should be noted thatweighting values could be defined with a larger range, for example −20%to +20%).

In addition to the processes that allow the group to adapt over time,changing the dynamics by which questions are collaboratively answered,the present invention includes one or more user-selectable mode whenasking a question that also changes the dynamics of the collaborativeanswer. For example, the present invention includes a user selectablemode called “gravity mode” that is accessible from the physics selectiondrop-down menu 216. The gravity mode is engaged during the session suchthat the pointer 210 experiences the restoring force that pulls thepointer 210 back to the point substantially centered among the pluralityof the given input choices 208, the restoring force a function ofdistance from the center.

This creates a new collaborative dynamic in which members of the groupmust provide user input with a collective force that overcomes gravityin order to position the pointer 210 on one of the plurality of inputchoices 208. This significantly alters the swarm dynamics, for it nowrequires more than a simple plurality of users providing input to thepointer 210 in a substantially synchronized manner in order to positionthe pointer 210 on the target. In the standard non-gravity mode, ifthere were 100 users, with 51 pulling towards one answer, and 49 pullingtowards another, the 51 would likely be able to position the pointer 210on the desired target. But with gravity of sufficient restoring force,the system can be configured to require that at least 80% (i.e. 80 usersof the 100 in the group at the present time) are pulling in asubstantially similar direction to overcome gravity and position thepointer 210 on the desired target. This mode thus enables a high barrierfor collaborative decision making, requiring the group to have more“conviction” in the resulting response.

In some embodiments, the level of gravitational force isuser-selectable, thereby adjusting the level of conviction required toovercome gravity and reach the target answer.

Referring next to FIG. 8, an example display interface of the virtuallobby interface 800 is shown. Shown are a group directory 802, theplurality of group names 204, a plurality of group themes 806, aplurality of group cohesiveness score indications 406, a plurality ofinformation icons 812, a plurality of statistics icons 814, a pluralityof log icons 816, a plurality of favorites icons 818, a number of usersin the group 820, a plurality of maximum number of users 822, aplurality of unlocked icons 824, a locked icon 826, a favorites section828, a swarm creation section 830, a plurality of user input areas 832,a make private selection box 834, and a create button 836.

The virtual lobby interface 800 is accessible to computer users oncomputing devices 104 either through the CIA running on their computingdevice 104, or through a standard web browser (if the virtual lobbyinterface 800 is created as a standard html webpage). As shown in FIG.8, the virtual lobby interface 800 includes the group directory 802 ofavailable groups that users can join and then participate in real-timecollaborative intelligence processes. The virtual lobby interface 800 isnot real-time, but employs more traditional methods known to the artwhen joining chat rooms. The virtual lobby interface 800 is divided intoa number of sections. One section is the group directory 802 labeled as“UNUM Central”. Using the group directory 802, users can browse theavailable groups, each of said groups being associated with a theme thatgoverns the type of questions that users will ask.

The group directory 802 in the embodiment shown comprises a table, witha row for each group included in the directory. Information included inthe row for each group includes the group name 204, the group theme 806,the current number of users in the group 820, the maximum number ofusers 822, and the current group cohesiveness score. The group theme 806is a general description of the area of focus for the group, forexample, investing, music, politics or technology.

If the group cohesiveness score is low, users may not want to enter thatswarm because it means the group is not being highly collaborative. Thelow group cohesiveness score impacts the enjoyability of the session aswell as limits the scores (credits) that users can earn.

Also included in the row for each group is a plurality of tool icons.Included in the tool icons of the exemplary lobby interface 800 of FIG.8 are the information icon 812, the statistics icon 814, the log icon816, and the group member icon. When the user selects the informationicon 812 for one group, a display of additional information about thatswarm is shown. When the user selects the statistics icon 814, a displayof statistics of the group is shown. Statistics may include a number ofquestions asked by the group during one or more periods of time, anaverage number of users that participated in the group during one ormore periods of time, and the average group cohesiveness of the groupduring one or more periods of time. The average group cohesiveness maybe determined by finding the mean of a series of repeated groupcohesiveness scores over a specific period of time. In some instancesthe mean is time-weighted such that time-steps near the end of the timeperiod are more heavily weighted than time steps near the start of thetime period. In some embodiments the period of time may comprise aplurality of completed question-and-answer sessions.

When the log icon 816 is selected by the user, a display of a log priorquestions and answers of that swarm is displayed. The log display hasbeen disclosed in the related applications. The log display mayoptionally include the ability not just to see the questions andanswers, but also access the replay of those questions and answers. Toachieve this, the CCS 102 archives not just a history of questions andanswers for each swarm, but archives the replay data associated witheach of said questions and answers. In some preferred embodiments, thereplay data includes locative data for the pointer 210 and each of themagnet icons 306, said data stored at regular time intervals over theperiod of a response to a question. For example, pointer locationcoordinates along with magnet icon 306 positions, orientations, and sizedata may be stored every 0.25 seconds during the period of the responseto the question. In addition, data related to the pointer 210 being overinput choices 208 may also be stored. In some preferred embodiments,magnet icon 306 data is stored relative to pointer 210 location, forexample as a distance vector from the center of the pointer 210, thedistance vector having a size and orientation relative to the center ofthe pointer 210.

The favorites icon 818 indicates which of the groups are included in a“favorites” list. In one embodiment the favorites list includes groupsthat user has selected as favorites, groups that have been created bythe user, and private swarms that the user has been invited to. For thegroups shown in the portion of the group directory 802 displayed in FIG.8, the groups includes in the user's favorites are X-Men, Bigbrain,HumanZoo, OuterLimits, and 3D-Makers groups, as indicated by thehighlighted (white) star icon. Groups not included in the user'sfavorites list are indicated by the unhighlighted (black) star icon.

Some groups displayed in the group directory 802 are configured to havelimitations to group membership, as previously described. These groupsare indicated by either the locked icon 826 or the unlocked icon 824next to the group name 204. In the group directory 802 portion shown,the HumanZoo and 3D-Makers groups include the unlocked icon 824,indicating that it is currently possible to join those groups if themembership limitations are met. The Séance group includes the lockedicon 826, indicating that it is not possible to join that group at thistime.

The locked icon 826 may be displayed for one of a plurality of reasons,for example—the swarm may be locked because it is private and requiresan invitation or password to be joined by the user. The swarm may belocked because it has an entry threshold such that users must havescores and/or statistics related to their historical performance thatare above the entry threshold to be granted access. The swarm may belocked because the swarm is configured to require group approval for newusers joining. The swarm may be locked because it has reached itsreal-time group size limit and thus cannot accept any additional usersat the present time.

As also shown in FIG. 8, the swarm creation section 830 allows users tocreate their own swarm. By entering information into the user inputareas 832 of the swarm creation section 830, and then selecting thecreate button 836, the user can define the name of a new swarm, give thenew swarm a theme, and optionally make the new swarm a private swarmthat requires a password, by selecting the make private selection box834. In some embodiments, users are further given the ability to invitetheir friends to the new swarm by accessing their Facebook® friendsand/or Twitter® followers.

As also shown in FIG. 8, the favorites section 828 of the displayinterface allows users to track swarms that are of particular interestto them. The favorites section 828 comprises a table including theswarms included in the user's favorites list. The favorites section 828is formatted similarly to the group directory 802 table, including theUNUM name, theme, number of users in the group 820, maximum number ofusers 822, and icons 812, 814, 816, 818 for each swarm included in thefavorites section 828. The favorites section 828 may also include thelocked icon 826 or the unlocked icon 824 for the group, as applicable.

In this way, the present invention allows users to enter swarms, exitswarms, and create swarms. The historical performance for users (forexample their score, credits, ranking, rating, and synchronicity values)are maintained by the CCS 102 for participation across all swarms. Thusa user can earn points by participating in a variety of swarms, publicand private, although they can only be in one swarm at a time. That'sbecause swarms require real-time participation.

In addition to defining the name, theme, and password of a given swarm,users are given the ability to configure new swarms by settingparameters that indicate: (a) whether the new swarm is private orpublic, (b) whether the new swarm supports adaptive weighting or allusers should always have equal weighting, (c) whether the swarm supportsautomated purging or the purging of users should always be userinitiated, (d) whether the swarm is supports “swarm admit only” oranyone can join the swarm without the swarm intellect making anassessment, (e) whether the swarm supports an entry threshold and if so,what level it should be, (f) whether the swarm supports an ejectionthreshold and if so, what the level should be. In addition, each swarmcan be linked to one or more official Twitter® accounts, for the sendingof Tweets that represent the official voice of that swarm intelligence.

To enhance collaborative experiences among real-time synchronous usersover a distributed network, additional novel systems and methods havebeen developed for enabling members of a swarm to selectively ask aquestion to the group and then collect suggestions from other members ofthat group which populate the possible answers displayed to the group.The group then collectively selects an answer from among the optionssubmitted, using real-time synchronous control. To achieve suchcoordination across a distributed network, various systems and methodshave been developed.

This technique is referred to herein as “suggestion mode”. Althoughuniquely powerful, it can be conceptualized as an enhanced version ofthe “custom mode” disclosed in co-pending patent application Ser. No.14/473,768, filed Jun. 12, 2015. In the custom mode, an individual usercan ask a question and provide a custom set of answers that the swarmwill choose from. In suggestion mode, the user asks a question, but thenindicates that the custom choices are to be collected from a pluralityof other members of the swarm. Under the coordination of the CCS 102software, these suggestions then populate the displayed choices, throughsophisticated coordination with the CIA software running on eachcomputing device 104. To enable this, a novel series of steps arerequired.

Referring next to FIG. 9, a flowchart diagram of a suggestion process ofthe real-time collaborative system is shown. Shown are a first joingroup step 900, a user input question step 902, a send question to alldevices step 904, a display question and suggestion mode step 906, auser inputs suggestion step 908, a CCS sends suggestion step 910, a filltarget area step 912, a spots filled decision point 914, a time perioddecision point 916, and a suggestion period ended step 918.

In the first join group step 900, a plurality of users join one group(or “swarm”) at the same time, thereby comprising a specific real-timecollaborative group of users. Joining the group can be achieved by eachuser accessing the lobby interface 800 through the CIA and selecting thespecific group from the plurality of available groups. Alternatively,joining the group can be achieved by creating a new group using theswarm creation section 830 of the virtual lobby interface 800.Alternatively, joining the group can be achieved by respondingaffirmatively to an invitation from another user, either by email, overFacebook®, over Twitter®, over Google Hangouts®, or using some othersocial networking platform that links users. Upon joining the group, theCCS 102 sends a message to the CIA software running on the joininguser's individual computing device 104, providing information related tojoining that group, such as that user's current status data and/or groupcurrent status data. Also sent to the CIA software running on thatuser's computing device 104, is a list of user names of other currentusers who are participating in this real-time group.

Having joined the group, each user in the group is running the CIA onhis own computing device 104 and is thereby provided with the displayinterface that enables them to simultaneously view the graphical pointer210, said pointer 210 being substantially co-located across computingdevices 104 as displayed with respect to the set of graphical inputchoices 208. The input choices 208 are also referred to as “answerchoices”, as the users are choosing from the plurality of answer choices208 to arrive at the answer, i.e. the plurality of answer choices 208comprises the set of possible answers. Each user is also provided by theCIA with the prompt bar 202 by which they can enter a textual questionto be asked to the group. Each user is also provided by the CIA softwarewith the board selection drop-down menu 214 or other similar interface,by which they can select from among the set of standard target areas 206to be associated with the asked question, each of said target areas 206comprising the spatially arranged set of input choices 208. The boardselection drop-down menu 214 also allows users to choose a custom mode,wherein the user can enter a set of custom-defined input choices 208.The board selection drop-down menu 214 also allows users to choose thesuggestion mode to be associated with the current question, thesuggestion mode being the one that is selected for the set of methodsdescribed herein.

In the next user input question step 902, a first user types a questionthe prompt bar 202, selectively indicating to the CIA software that thisquestion should be asked in suggestion mode, using the board selectiondrop-down menu 214 or other graphical or textual element, and thenclicks the ask button 228 to input the question to the CIA. For example,the user might have joined a group of 10 friends, and asked “Whereshould we go for dinner tonight?” by entering it into the prompt bar202, and indicated that it should be answered using the suggestion mode,by selecting that from the board selection drop-down menu 214. A similardisplay interface is shown below in FIG. 10. The process then proceedsto the send question to all devices step 904.

In the send question to all devices step 904, the CIA sends arepresentation of the question (such as a text string) to the CCS 102,along with the identity of the associated user and an indication thatthe question is to be answered in suggestion mode. The CCS 102 thendetermines if the question is a valid question and whether the questionhas priority over other questions that may have been received from otherusers. If the question is valid and has priority, the CCS 102 determinesthat this will be the currently active question that is posed to thegroup. The CCS 102 then sends a representation of the question, alongwith an indication that it is to be answered using suggestion mode, toeach of plurality of computing devices 104 associated with the pluralityof users who comprise the group.

In the next display question and suggestion mode step 906, the CIA ofeach computing device 104, in response to receiving the representationof the question and the indication of suggestion mode from the CCS 102,updates the display interface to display the question and a graphicaland/or textual indication that the question is to be answered insuggestion mode. For example, the CCS 102 might send the textualquestion “Where should we go for dinner tonight?” the computing devices104 of 11 networked friends who comprise the current group, along withthe indication that this question is to be answered using suggestionmode, whereby the display interfaces of the group are updated.

The CIA on each computing device 104 of the group executes thesuggestion process where it (a) displays the received question, and (b)displays a suggestion dialog box 1004, indicating that suggestions aredesired as possible answers to this new question. In many preferredembodiments, display of the question and the suggestion dialog box 1004is coordinated to happen at substantially the same time upon thecomputing devices 104 of all plurality of members of the group. In thisway, the members of the group are all informed at the same time that anew question has been asked and that suggestions are needed for possibleanswers. In many preferred embodiments, the suggestion process runningon the CIA also presents a suggestion countdown timer 1008 (as shownbelow in FIG. 10) related to the suggestion request, giving all users afixed amount of time to collectively enter suggestions. An indicationtriggering the suggestion countdown timer 1008 is sent from the CCS 102to each computing device 104 in the group at the start of the suggestionperiod.

In some embodiments, the CIA software is configured to only allow onesuggestion to be entered from each member of the group. In otherembodiments, the CIA software is configured to allow users to entermultiple suggestions, one after another, using the suggestion box. Inmany preferred embodiments, the CIA software is configured toselectively enable both modes depending on either (a) a settingconfigured by the user who asked the question, or (b) a settingconfigured by the user who created the group. This setting may be “allowmultiple suggestions from each user” and can be set as either yes or no.In an advanced version, the setting is controlled automatically by theCIA and/or CCS 102 software, depending upon the number of the users in agroup. For groups that have less than a designated number of users,those users are allowed to provide multiple suggestions in response to asingle question posed in suggestion mode. For groups that have more thana designated number of users, users are only allowed to provide onesuggestion in response to a question posed in suggestion mode. Thisadaptive method is highly effective, for small groups often requiremultiple suggestion from users to keep the process moving quickly. Inpreferred embodiments, the suggestion countdown timer 1008 may be set toa short amount of time, such as 30 seconds.

In the next user inputs suggestion step 908, one user in the group typesa suggestion into a suggestion input field 1006 of the suggestion dialogbox 1004 and hits return. The CIA software running on the computingdevice 104 responsively sends a representation of the suggestion to theCCS 102, indicating the suggestion and a username of the user. It willbe understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that multiplemembers of the group may input suggestions simultaneously.

In one example, as shown in FIG. 11 below, the user of the computingdevice 104 shown in FIG. 11 might enter “Taco Bell” into the suggestioninput field 1006 of the suggestion dialog box 1004. The suggestion “TacoBell” along with the username of the user who made that suggestion, issent from the local CIA software on the user's computing device 104 tothe CCS 102, wherein the suggestion mode process is triggered. In thisexample, the username of that user is “JimmyD”.

In the next step, the CCS sends suggestion step 908, the CCS 102 addsthe received suggestion to a set of input choices 208 that will be usedin responding to this question. The CCS 102 then sends an indication ofthe received suggestion (and optionally the username of the user whoinput the suggestion) to all of the computing devices 104 in the group.As shown in FIG. 11, the suggestion “Taco Bell” and an indication thatit was made by user “JimmyD” is sent to all computing devices 104 in thegroup, substantially simultaneously. In preferred embodiments, thishappens very quickly because all other users are currently contemplatingtheir own suggestions.

In preferred embodiments, informing is done by graphically displayingthe suggestion upon the target area 206. In preferred embodiments, asshown below in FIG. 11 the name of the user who made the suggestion islisted in the chat window 218, for example with text: “JimmyD suggestsTaco Bell”. This is achieved by the CIA automatically composing a textphrase, using the user name and suggestion, and inserting the word“suggest”, allowing the CIA to communicate through natural language.

In the next fill target area step 912, an indication of the suggestionis sent to all computing devices 104, whereby the CIA changes one of aplurality of input choice placeholders 1002 (also referred to as answerchoice placeholders) to the input choice equal to the suggestion. Insome embodiments, in lieu of updating the target area 206 with thesuggestion each time the CCS 102 receives one suggestion, the CCS 102may select the input choices from the set of suggestions after allsuggestions have been received. In some embodiments there is a criteriafor using suggestions as input choices, and a suggestion is not added tothe set of input choices 208 if the suggestion does not meet thecriteria. In yet another embodiment, the set of input choices 208 isranked and the top input choices 208 are included in the target area206. The process then proceeds to the spots filled decision point 914.

During the spots filled decision point 914, if all input choiceplaceholders 1002 for input choices 208 in the target area 206 have eachbeen filled by one suggestion, the process proceeds to the time perioddecision point 916. If the designated time period has also ended, theprocess proceeds to the suggestion period ended step 918, suggestionperiod is over and the CIA updates the display interface to indicatethat suggestions may no longer be input.

If all input choice placeholders 1002 on the target area 206 have notbeen replaced with input choices 208, the process returns to the userinputs suggestion step 908, where the same user or another user inputs anew suggestion. The process then repeats until the time period ends orall positions are filled, in which case the process terminates at thesuggestion period ended step 918.

In some cases, the suggestion time period expires before all the inputchoice placeholders 1002 are filled with input choices 208. In manypreferred embodiments, the CCS 102 software is configured to thenexecute the answer period of the session, leaving the blank spots empty.The CCS 102 software can then be configured not to allow users tocollectively pick the input choice placeholder 1002.

If, however, fewer than 2 suggestions were received by the CCS 102software by the time that the time period is ended, the question isdeemed by the CCS 102 software not to be viable. This is because thegroup needs at least 2 input choices 208 to choose between whenanswering a question. In such a situation, the CCS 102 software isconfigured to send a “not enough suggestions” message to each of thecomputing devices 104. The CIA software on those computing devices 104then displays a “not enough suggestions” message, and terminates thesession. In some embodiments, the users lose points (credits) for thefailed attempt, because it was a non-collaborative result. In otherembodiments, only the first user (the asker of the question) losespoints, for his question failed to inspire a sufficient number ofsuggestions to proceed.

In response to the end of the suggestion period, the CIA software oneach of the computing devices 104 may then start the answer period, aspreviously described in related applications. The end of the suggestionperiod may be indicated by hiding the suggestion dialog box 1004, and byenabling the collaborative control of the pointer 210. In someembodiments the CCS 102 sends a message to all computing devices 104 inthe group. The message could be a simple trigger message, assuming thatall devices 104 in the group already have received the question and thesuggestions as they were entered. In some preferred embodiments, thismessage actually re-sends the question and the set of suggestions, to besure that none of the computing devices 104 missed some data. Further,this allows for computing devices 104 who joined the group during thesuggestion period to be brought up to date as to the current question,and the final set of suggestions.

It should be noted that some advanced versions of the CCS 102 algorithmshandle suggestions in a manner which is not simply first-comefirst-serve, as described above. These methods are used for very largegroups where far more suggestions are received than can fill the targetarea 206. One such method, uses a randomization process to select asuggestion set from a large number of suggestions received. Other suchmethod assigns priority to suggestions received from users who havehigher scores, more credits, better performance (synchronicity) values,and/or higher rankings in their stored historical data.

The answer period also includes the countdown clock 304 indicating howmuch time is left for the group to collaboratively control the pointer210 and target an answer. In many embodiments, this counter starts at 60seconds. From here, the process proceeds using the methods for answeringquestions disclosed above, and in the co-pending patent applicationsthat have been incorporated by reference.

Referring next to FIG. 10, an exemplary group display interface 1000 ofone computing device 104 of the collaborative system at a point in timeimmediately after the first user has submitted a question in suggestionmode is shown. Shown are the group name 204, the target area 206, thecommunication menu 212, the chat window 218, the chat input box 220, thecurrent member list 222, the statistics display 224, the invite button226, the questions display 302, the flag icon 602, the plurality ofinput choice placeholders 1002, the suggestion dialog box 1004, thesuggestion input field 1006, and the suggestion countdown timer 1008.

The exemplary display interface of FIG. 10 is shown as it might bedisplayed by the CIA software running on one of the group computingdevices 104, in response to the question being received from the CCS102, that question being indicated as a suggestion mode question, i.e.during the display question and suggestion mode step 906. As shown inFIG. 10, the question is displayed by the CIA software to the user ofthis computing device 104, in the question display 302. As also shown inthe FIG. 10, the suggestion dialog box 1004 is also displayed by the CIAsoftware to the user, the suggestion dialog box 1004 including thesuggestion input field 1006 for use by the user to input the suggestion.As also shown in the FIG. 10, the suggestion countdown timer 1008 isdisplayed to the user by the CIA software as triggered by an indicationsend from the CCS 102, counting down the number of seconds that are leftfor the group of users to provide suggestions.

As also displayed in FIG. 10, the plurality of input choice placeholders1002 is displayed on the target area 206, the plurality of input choiceplaceholders 1002 that will be replaced by input choices 208 selectedfrom the suggestions received by the CCS 102. At the moment in timerepresented by FIG. 10, no suggestions have yet been displayed. In otherwords, the CCS 102 software is currently waiting for six suggestions (oroptionally five, if “bad question” is to be automatically filled in asone of the choices as will be the case in this example).

Referring next to FIG. 11, an exemplary group display interface 1100 ofthe computing device 104 of the collaborative system during thesuggestion period is shown. Shown are the group name 204, the targetarea 206, the plurality of input choices 208, the pointer 210, thecommunication menu 212, the chat window 218, the chat input box 220, thecurrent member list 222, the statistics display 224, the invite button226, the question display 302, the magnet icon 306, the plurality ofinput choice placeholders 1002, the suggestion dialog box 1004, and thesuggestion countdown timer 1008.

The time shown in the display interface 1100 shown in FIG. 11 is duringthe loop of steps 908 through 912, i.e. after the user input questionstep 902, but before the suggestion time period indicated by thesuggestion countdown timer 1008 has expired, and before the set of inputchoice placeholders 1002 has been filled with suggestions. Thus, at thismoment in time depicted by FIG. 11, more suggestions can still beentered, thus the suggestion dialog box 1004 is still displayed on thedisplay interface.

Also shown in FIG. 11 is a snapshot of the chat window 218 at one pointin time during the suggestion period. As shown in FIG. 11, the chatwindow 218 displays the question asked, associated with the username ofthe user who submitted the question using the suggestion input field1006 shown previously in FIG. 10. As also shown, the chat window 218lists each of the suggestions submitted so far, and also indicates theusername associated with the user who submitted that suggestion.

In the example shown in FIG. 11, JimmyD asked the question, “Whereshould we go for dinner tonight?” in suggestion mode which wastransmitted to the CCS 102, forwarded to the CIA software of eachcomputing device 104, and displayed by the CIA software in both the chatwindow 218 and in the question display 302 of all the computing devices104 in the group. The suggestion dialog box 1004 was then displayed inthe target area 206 on all computing devices of the members of thegroup, substantially simultaneously. The users were also given a 30second suggestion time period to make suggestions, the suggestion timeperiod indicated by the suggestion countdown timer 1008.

A plurality of users each entered suggestions on their own computingdevices 104 which were sent by the CIA software on their computingdevices to the CCS 102 (the user inputs suggestion step 908) which werethen sent to each of the computing devices 104 and displayed by the CIAsoftware of each device 104 (the CCS sends suggestion step 910 and thefill target area step 912).

As shown in FIG. 11, each of the suggestions is displayed by the CIAsoftware on the target area 206 as one input choice, each input choicetaking the place of one input choice placeholder 1002. The three inputchoices 208 shown are “Taco Bell”, “Salad Farm” and “Red Lobster”.Because only three suggestions were entered thus far in this example,the other input choice placeholders 1002 continue to be display, in thisexample as “?” symbols.

Optionally displayed is an indication in the chat window 218 of theusername of the user who submitted the suggestion. This is aconfigurable option, for some groups may not want to broadcast who makessuggestions, instead leaving them anonymous. This can be a setting ofthe group, as set in the lobby interface 800 when a group is createdand/or configured. This can also be a setting of the question, when theuser selects suggestion mode, indicating if suggestions will beanonymous or tagged with their username.

At this point in the multi-step process, the CCS 102 software determinesif (a) the suggestion countdown timer 1008 is up, or (b) if all thetarget slots have been filled with suggestions, as previously describedin the spots filled decision point 914 and the time period decisionpoint 916 of FIG. 11. If so, assuming at least 2 suggestions werereceived, the CCS 102 software is configured to send a message to allthe computing devices 104, telling them to end the suggestion period andenter the answer period of this multi-phase process. This message issent such that all the computing devices 104 can start the answer periodin a substantially simultaneous manner, as the real-time synchronousanswering session requires substantial simultaneity. (Alternatively, theCCS 102 software may determine that the question is terminated due tolack of suggestions, as described previously).

This multi-step process that includes the suggestion period and theanswer period is highly effective, for it allows the group to engage inthe question and answer process that combines the benefits ofasynchronous and synchronous interactions. For example, the group mightcomprise a small group of friends, allowing the group of friends torapidly and definitively answer a question by deciding among a number ofsuggestions, converging upon an answer in a very short amount of time.

Because the above system and methods are so effective (and enjoyable)for users when it comes to allowing groups of friends to make rapidcollaborative decisions about their daily activities, it is highlydesirable for users to employ the present invention on mobile devicessuch as phones and tables that are kept with them during their dailybusiness. Furthermore, when it comes to small private groups, users maywish to keep one or more groups constantly active, but hidden in thebackground, ready to be engaged when one member of the group poses aquestion to the group.

To support this need, systems and methods for “background swarming” havebeen developed and are disclosed herein, said system and methodsoperative to monitor the activity level of the users of a particulargroup and put that group into a “background mode” if and when theactivity of the users falls below a defined threshold value (definedherein as an inactivity threshold) for more than a defined amount oftime (defined herein as an inactivity time).

To further support this need, systems and methods have been developed to“wake” a group that has been put into background mode such that itreturns to active status. This poses some very unique challenges becauseof the distributed real-time synchronous nature of groups. It's notenough to simply activate the software to “wake” the group; the membersof that group need to be drawn back into participation in a coordinatedmanner. This is defined as “synchronized engagement” and it involved anumber of innovative systems and methods.

First, to support the synchronized engagement, methods and systems forcoordination alerts have been developed that enable groups to be broughttogether at a moment's notice by causing the output of an alert signal(sound, image, or other sensory display) that is intended to alert eachmember of the group that is being “awoken” through the substantiallysynchronized control of those users' computing devices 104. Furthermore,the synchronized engagement systems and methods include the definitionof unique and inventive values including a unique and effective quorumparameter, and an engagement time, each of which can be defined andassociated with a given group.

To support the coordinated disengagement and coordinated engagement ofgroup members to a group that is selectively put into background modeand selectively awoken from that background mode, CCS 102 and CIAsoftware routines have been developed that handle the unique challengesassociated with moderating the real-time synchronous group ofdistributed users. More specifically, the CCS 102 and CIA software areconfigured to enable the group to be automatically put into thebackground mode based on a level of synchronous member activity fallingbelow the predefined inactivity threshold for more than the predefinedinactivity time.

When the background mode is triggered the CIA software running on theuser's computing device 104 goes into the computational background (forexample, by being put into an unfocused state in a multi-taskingenvironment) or stops running entirely by being suspended or terminated.It's important to note that the background mode is not triggered inresponse to one user's inactivity, but triggered based on a collectiveinactivity of the group. This collective inactivity is monitored by thecentral CCS 102 which is configured to determine when the currentreal-time activity among the members of the group, falls below theinactivity threshold. This determination is made by the CCS 102 softwareusing one of a variety of inventive methods, which can be used alone orin combination.

In one embodiment, the CCS 102 software is configured to determine thelevel of group activity based on the change in the user intent vectorssent from CIA software running upon the computing devices 104 of thecurrently joined members of that group. If none of the user intentvectors are sufficiently changing (i.e. the change is less than theinactivity threshold), it means no users are substantially engaging theinterface methods to influence the pointer 210. If this lack of changeis detected for more than an inactivity time amount of time, the CCSsoftware determines that synchronous real-time activity is notsufficient among the group and the present time, and the background modeis engaged. The CCS then sends a background mode indication message overthe communication link to the CIA software running on the computingdevices 104 of the current group. In response to that message, CIAsoftware on those computing devices engage background mode. This isachieved by suspending, un-focusing, hiding, terminating, or minimizingthe main CIA code running on that computing device 104. If the code isconfigured to terminate, a small vestigial program still runs on thecomputing device 104 and is configured to re-launch the full CIA code inresponse to receiving a “wake up” message from the CCS 102. Such a “wakeup” message is sent by the CCS 102 to the CIA software running on eachcomputing device 104 in response to a desired re-engagement of thegroup, to be described later in this document.

In one embodiment, software running on the CCS 102 tracks the motion ofthe graphical pointer 210 that's under collaborative control by thegroup. If the collaboratively controlled pointer 210 substantially stopschanging its position for more than the inactivity time, the CCSsoftware determines that the group is not substantially active and thatthe background mode should be engaged, sending the background indicationmessage over the exchanges of data 106 to the CIA software running onthe computing device 104 of each of the currently joined members of thatgroup. In response to the background indication message, the CIAsoftware on each of the plurality of computing devices 104 thenun-focuses, hides, suspends, minimizes, or terminates the main CIA coderunning on that computing device 104 (for that particular group). If thecode terminates, the small vestigial program is configured to run on thecomputing device 104 such that will re-launch the CIA code (for thatgroup) in response to the “wake up” message from the CCS 102.

Another inventive method, to be used alone or in combination with themethods described above, is configured such that the CCS 102 softwaremonitors question input and optionally chat input from the plurality ofcurrent real-time users in the group. If no new question is received bythe CCS 102 from members of that group (and optionally no new chatmessages are received by the CCS 102 from members of that group) formore than the inactivity time, the CCS 102 software deems that thebackground mode should be engaged and sends the background indicationmessage to the CIA software running on each of the computing devices 104of that group. The CIA software on each of the plurality of computingdevices then un-focuses, hides, suspends, minimizes, or terminates themain CIA code running on that computing device (for that group). If themain CIA code terminates, the small background program still runs thatcan re-launch the main CIA code and engage that group in response to the“wake up” message from the CCS 102 (for that group).

The present invention also includes novel methods and systems for“waking up” the synchronous real-time group that has been put intobackground mode such that the members of the group are enabled throughcomputer-moderated methods to rapidly re-engage the system, thusrestoring their real-time synchronous stance with respect to each other.Re-engagement is overseen by software running on the CCS 102 system,said software configured to determine if the group in background modeshould be re-engaged (i.e. woken up) and in response, send out thesubstantially simultaneous “wake-up” message over the communication linkto each of the computing devices 104 of the users who are currentlyjoined members of that group.

In preferred embodiments of the present invention, when the local CIArunning on the computing device 104 determines that the wake-up messagewas received from the CCS 102 for that particular group, the CIA isconfigured to perform two actions: (a) the CIA re-launches or re-focusesor otherwise restores the CIA software to a more active state, and (b)the CIA will output the user alert such as a beep or ring or othersensory alert, indicating to the user of that computing device that thegroup is being re-engaged. Such a beep or ring other sensory alert isreferred to herein as the user alert and is described in more detaillater in this document.

With respect to the wake-up message sent by the CCS 102 to the computingdevices, a number of novel methods have been developed to trigger thewake-up message at appropriate times. More specifically, in somepreferred embodiments, such the wake-up message is triggered by the CCSwhen one member of the group that is currently in background mode asks anew question. This is an effective trigger, because the new question isthe primary event that requires sudden attention by members of thegroup. In this way, users are enabled, for example, to put theircomputing device 104 in their pocket and not pay attention to the groupfor an extended period. But, when the new question is asked to the groupby a member, the CCS 102 software sends the wake-up message to the CIAsoftware running on the plurality of computing devices 104, each ofwhich then outputs the sensory user alert to the user indicating thatthe new question has been received and the group must quickly re-engageto answer it. In some embodiments, the question is displayed on thescreen of each of said computing devices 104 along with a re-engagementmessage. The user of each computing device 104 can then optionallyre-engage the interface of the CIA software on their device 104,indicating that they are now ready to collaboratively answer theincoming question (or alternately ignore the user alert if they arebusy).

In many preferred embodiments, when the CIA software is in backgroundmode and the user of that device is alerted by the user alert, the CIAsoftware is configured to determine if the alerted user is ready to bere-engaged by monitoring the display interface of the computing device104. If the user, for example, engages the software by pressing aspecific interface control, the CIA software sends an engagement messageto the CCS 102, informing the CCS 102 that the user of this particularcomputing device 104 is engaged and thus ready to participate in thereal-time group. The interface control may, for example, be a graphicalbutton displayed on the display interface labeled “re-engage” or“ready”.

In many preferred embodiments, the CCS 102 software monitors theengagement messages from the computing devices 104 in the group, andtracks how many members of the group are re-engaged in response to thewake-up message and the associated user alerts. In many preferredembodiments, the CCS 102 software is configured to wait until asufficient percentage of the users in that group are re-engaged beforestarting the collaborative answer session for the question that wasentered.

In some embodiments, the sufficient percentage of the group is thepredefined value known as the quorum parameter, said value beingassociated with that particular group. The quorum parameter indicateswhat percentage of the currently active members of the group must bere-engaged before the answer period of the new question of a group beingawoken from background mode will be enacted. The quorum parameter may beset in the lobby interface 800 as part of the group creation process.Thus when a user creates a new group, he can set what the quorumparameter should be for that group. In some instances, the creator maydesire that a high percentage of participants are required forre-engagement, in other instances the creator may be satisfied with alow percentage.

Alternatively, the CIA and CCS 102 can be configured to enable the userwho had asked the question to the group and thus was responsible forthat group being brought out of background mode, to set the quorumparameter when asking the question. Thus, the question-asking user canindicate what percentage of the currently joined members of the groupmust be re-engaged before the question enters the answer period. Thisallows for flexibility, for the question-asking user may choose torequire only a small percentage of users to be engaged with respect tohis particular question, depending upon the content and intent of hisquestion. Conversely, the question-asking user may require that a highpercentage of users is re-engaged.

It should be noted that the current invention, and associated methods,can be applied when the user is a member of multiple groups, a pluralityof said multiple groups being in the background at any one time. Becauseeach wake-up message is associated with a specific group, when thequestion-asking user triggers the waking of one particular group byasking the question to that group, that group is selected from theplurality of groups by the CCS 102 software.

In one example, the plurality of groups are maintained by the CCS 102,each of said plurality of groups having the plurality of associatedusers, each of said associated users having the associated computingdevice 104. The computing devices 104 may be desktop computers, tablets,phones, etc. The CCS 102 may include a set of centralized softwarerunning on a cloud server, for example Amazon® Web Services or GoogleCloud Platform™ or another similar platform. The lobby interface 800 isprovided to enable users to select and join groups.

In one example, a first user engages the present invention on a mobilephone. The first user has already joined three groups by engaging saidvirtual lobby interface 800, each of said three groups being associatedwith a plurality of other members, each of said other members usingtheir own computing devices 104.

At a moment in time, the CCS 102 software determines that all threegroups (designated Swarm1, Swarm2, and Swarm3) have each not been activefor more than the inactivity time as predefined for each group, asdetermined by monitoring the change in one or more of the user inputvectors, pointer motion, question input, and/or chat input from users.The CCS 102 software continues to monitor input from the users of thesegroups, ready to wake the group and re-engage the users if a newquestion comes in from a user.

A second user manually accesses Swarm2 on a mobile computing device, byactivating and engaging the user interface of the CIA software runningon his device 104. The second user enters a new question and presses“ask”. The new question is sent by the CIA software to the CCS 102,which flags the new question as an event that requires the re-engagementof Swarm2. Thus, in response to the question, the CCS 102 software sendsa Swarm2 wake-up message to the CIA software running on each of theplurality of computing devices 104 of the currently joined members ofSwarm2. In this example, there are currently 25 users who are activelyjoined members of Swarm 2.

The CIA software on each of the computing devices 104 of all 25 users,receives the Swarm 2 wake-up message from the CCS and each instance ofCIA by activating at least a portion of the display interface of the CIAsoftware of that device 104. The CIA software also responds to thereceived Swarm2 wake-up message by outputting a Swarm2 user alert in theform of a ring, beep or other sensory alert to the user of each Swarm2computing device 104. The CIA software then monitors the displayinterface to determine if the user of that device has responded to theSwarm2 user alert by interacting with the display interface. Theinteraction might include pressing a graphical button marked, forexample, “answer” or “join” or “ready” or “engage”.

When one user of the 25 computing devices 104 associated with Swarm2responds to the Swarm2 user alert through his display interface, the CIAsoftware is configured to send a Swarm2 re-engagement message to the CCS102 indicating the username (or other identifier) of that user, andfurther indicating that he is re-engaged.

The CCS 102 software receives the Swarm2 re-engagement message and keepstrack which members of Swarm2 that are re-engaged. The CCS 102 softwarecontinues to monitor engagement for a period of time. This period oftime is referred to herein as the engagement time. In some embodiments,the creator of the group can configure the engagement time as anadjustable parameter.

In the present example, the engagement time has been configured to 30seconds. This means the CCS 102 software runs a routine that monitorsthe re-engagement of members of the swarm for a maximum of 30 seconds,determining if the number of engaged members reaches the quorumparameter for Swarm2. In the present example, the quorum has been set to50%. Because Swarm2 currently has 25 users who are joined in, the CCS102 software is waiting until at least 13 of those users are engaged,thereby exceeding the 50% threshold defined by the quorum parameter(i.e. 13/25>50%).

If the quorum parameter is not met within the engagement time period,the CCS 102 software sends a failure message to the all the computingdevices of the members of the swarm, indicating that the question failedto achieve a quorum for the group and will not be actively answered. Thesecond user who asked the question may optionally try again, in the hopethat upon another asking more users will be engaged. In someembodiments, a delay time is instituted by the CCS 102 and CIA software,barring the second user from re-asking the question until the delay timeis passed, for example, 5 minutes.

If the quorum parameter is met within the engagement time, the CCS 102software sends a “question start” message to all the computing devices104 of the members of Swarm2. The CIA software running on those devicesthen execute the routines associated with the question period, enablingthe users to collaboratively control the graphical pointer 210 towardsone of the input choices 208 associated with the question. In this way,the group of users who are associated with a group that is currently inbackground swarming mode, is alerted by the moderating software whenthat swarm is awoken, selectively becomes re-engaged by interacting withlocal CIA software on their device, and if a large enough number and/orpercentage of said users are re-engaged, collaboratively performs areal-time synchronized control session to achieve a response to theasked question.

If additional members become re-engaged after the answer period hasstarted, the software enables them to seamlessly join-in, at which pointthey can collaboratively help in answering the question. This encouragesgreater engagement, even among users who could not re-engage fast enoughto join the swarm within the engagement time, but start participating inthe swarm soon after. When an answer is reached, the answer iscommunicated to all users, using the methods described previously.

Once the group has become active (i.e. is no longer in background mode),additional questions can be asked and answered using the standardmethods described previously. It's only if the group enters thebackground mode as a result of a period of inactivity that the groupwill need to go through this inventive wake-up method.

In some embodiments of the present invention, an engagement timerappears on the screen of each computing device, as controlled by the CIAsoftware of that device 104, indicating to the user how much time isleft for users to re-engage the group. The engagement timer is ideally acount-down timer that appears in a pop-up box shown in the displayinterface, with a textual indication, for example “ready to join in?”,and providing a response input button.

In some embodiments of the present invention, an engagement count isdisplayed to users on the screen of their computing device 104 as theengagement time ticks down. The engagement count is an indication of thenumber of users who have thus far re-engaged the group during theengagement time. In many embodiments the number is expressed as a ratiowith respect to the total number of members eligible to engage. Forexample, if at a moment in time, 8 members had engaged out of the 25members who are currently part of that group, the engagement count wouldbe displayed as a ratio in the form of “8/25”. This ratio is updated atrapid intervals so that users can monitor how many users are connecting(engaging) back with the swarm. In other embodiments a percentage isdisplayed.

While the suggestion mode described above enables groups of users toform a collaborative intelligence that can answer questions, makedecisions, or take actions by first collecting the set of input choices208 from members of the group, the current methods and systems are notideal for handling suggestions provided from large groups. That'sbecause a group comprising hundreds, thousands, or millions of userscould generate a very large numbers of suggestions in a very shortamount of time. While that is a powerful resource provided by the group,reflecting mass creativity on a large scale, the system and methodsdescribed thus far have no way for enabling the group, acting as asingle intelligent entity, to consider a large set of suggestions.That's because the prior embodiments involve the entire group beingpresented with the entire set of suggestions. The problem is, any singleindividual, acting as a single intelligent processing unit within thecollaborative synchronous group, can only view and consider a small setof suggestions in a short amount of time.

For example, if every individual user were presented with hundreds ofsuggested solutions to a given prompt, it would take them a long timejust to read all the suggestions, even longer to consider their viewsupon the relative suggestions. Further, with so many suggestionsconsidered at once in the collaborative real-time control process, itwould only take a very small advantage earned by one suggestion over theothers to be selected by the group. The result are answers that alwayshave a very low synchronicity (i.e. a very low degree of convictionwithin the group). In other words, if the collaborative group, acting asa single intelligence, considers a large set of suggestions in a singlesession, the output is slow and the results are unreliable because ittakes a long time for the users to consider all the suggestions, and thegroup does not need to achieve a strong consensus to land upon anysingle one of the large number of suggestions. This is problematic.

In the prior embodiments, this problem has been solved by limiting thenumber of suggestions that are presented to the group for acollaborative decision. In many preferred embodiments, the system limitsthe number of suggestions to something on the order of 5 to 8suggestions presented at once. This is a viable solution for relativelysmall groups because every member of the group can quickly consider asmall set of suggestions (for example, 6 suggestions) and because thecollaboratively controlled pointer 210 will require a substantialconsensus in order to be targeted onto any one of the small set ofsuggestions.

A problem remains, however, for large groups, because by limiting thenumber of suggestions to a small set, very few individuals from thatlarge group get to offer suggestions to a posed prompt, the rest of thegroup being excluded. If the group comprised 720 individuals, forexample, and only the first six responders got to offer suggestions (or6 randomly chosen responders), the system software is excluding creativeinput from 714 members of the group. This is highly frustrating forusers.

This is also a highly inefficient use of the collaborative creativitythat has been assembled by the present invention. After all, acollaborative group that can generate large numbers of suggestions anddecide among them would be more creative and thus more intelligent thana collaborative group that can only field a very small set ofsuggestions from its members. Thus, innovative systems and methods areneeded. The present invention, provides those innovative systems andmethods, empowering large groups to provide large numbers ofsuggestions, greatly boosting the creativity and intelligence of thegroup. In fact, because the group will be able to generate and considera much larger set of suggestions than any individual user could generateand consider in a similarly short amount of time, the currentinnovations elevate synchronous intelligent groups to super-intelligentlevels.

Consider, for example, a first large distributed group of 720 users, allof said 720 users engaging their own computing device, each of saidcomputing devices 104 running CIA software in networked communicationwith the Centralized Collaboration Server 102 running the CCS 102software. The heretofore disclosed system has the capacity to collectsuggestions from all 720 individuals, or at least a substantivepercentage of those individuals, thus resulting in a highly creativecollaborative group.

What is needed, however, is fast and efficient system and methods bywhich a large group of users, such as the first large distributed group,can evaluate the large number of suggestions and converge on a singlesolution. The problem is, no single individual can consider and evaluatelarge numbers of suggestions in a rapid and real-time manner.

For example, if only half of the 720 members in the first largedistributed group provided suggestions, that would comprise a suggestionset of 360 suggestions. Each user, using their own computing device 104would need a very long time just to read all 360 suggestions, let alonecompare the relative merits and pick a preferred option. What istherefore needed are inventive methods and systems that allow largenumbers of suggestions not only to be collected in real-time, but alsobe evaluated and selected among through a real-time synchronous process.

As described herein, the inventive methods and systems involve theinnovative use of subgroups working in parallel to divide the overallproblem, wherein the total group is subdivided in subgroups by theinventive routines running on the CCS 102, each of the members of saidsubgroups performing a collaborative synchronous process in parallelwith other subgroups performing similar synchronous collaborativeprocesses. In this way, the problem of considering and evaluating themassive number of suggestions is divided among many intelligentsubgroups, using the synchronous collaborative intelligence of thatgroup to reduce the total number of suggestions by picking among amanageably sized set and then passing that solution on to a next levelof subgroup processing.

Before describing the specifics of how the CCS 102, working inconjunction with CIA software running on each portable computing device104, is operative to divide a large number of suggestions into smallersets that are passed to subgroups, the process of forming subgroupsneeds to be explained.

As described in co-pending provisional patent application Ser. No.14/708,038, filed May 8, 2015 and entitled “MULTI-GROUP METHODS ANDSYSTEMS FOR REAL-TIME MULTI-TIER COLLABORATIVE INTELLIGENCE”, systemsand methods were disclosed that enable the CCS 102 to moderate amulti-group system in which the total group is divided into subgroups bythe software running on the CCS 102. The subgroups may optionally befurther arranged in the multi-tier architecture in which the subgroupsare arranged into a hierarchy in which solutions are arrived at by lowerlevel subgroups and then passed to higher subgroups, which select fromamong the solutions provided by the lower level subgroups.

Referring next to FIG. 12, one embodiment of a multi-group system isshown. Shown are the CCS 102, the plurality of computing devices 104,the plurality of exchanges of data 106, a first subgroup 1200, a secondsubgroup 1202, and a third subgroup 1204.

In one such embodiment, the group of users is split up into multiplesubgroups, each subgroup working in parallel to answer a question orotherwise respond to a prompt. As shown in FIG. 12, the group could besplit into three subgroups: the first subgroup 1200 designated “Subgroup1”, the second subgroup 1202 “Subgroup 2”, and the third subgroup 1204designated “Subgroup 3”. The subgroups 1200, 1202, 1204 are moderated bythe CCS 102 software to work in parallel, independently makingcollaborative decisions that are passed to the CCS. In the exampleshown, each subgroup 1200, 1202, 1204 includes 12 computing devices 104.In the example shown in FIG. 12, the parallel subgroups 1200, 1202, 1204will pass a total of three options to the CCS 102, i.e. one per subgroup1200, 1202, 1204. The three options will be communicated to the CCS.

When splitting the group into the fixed set of subgroups 1200, 1202,1204, the members of the group are not contributing as efficiently asthey could, for they are only participating when that subgroup isengaged in the multi-step process. This does not take advantage of thefull power of the collaborative group, giving substantial idle time tomany members of the total group when their subgroup is waiting for othersubgroups to provide solutions to be considered. In fact, the moresubgroups in the architecture, the more idle time that members of thegroup have. This is wasteful of the intellectual resource of the groupmembers. Even worse, it's dull for the users, for they are waitingaround for periods of time while other subgroups are engaged.

The present invention solves this with a substantial innovative leapwhereby the CCS 102 dynamically creates new subgroups for each phase ofthe suggestion processing, said subgroups collectively including allmembers of the overall group. More specifically, the subgrouping isdynamic such that members of the overall group are first assigned to afirst set of subgroups engaging in a first level of processing thatprovides a first set of answers or solutions. At that point, the groupmembers are dynamically reassigned by the CCS 102, which creates a newset of subgroups collectively including all members of the group. Inthis way, all users participate in all steps of the process as a resultof the CCS 102 software dynamically rearranging the collaborativegroups. This means that no users having substantial idle time, which issubstantially more enjoyable for users and a substantially moreefficient use of intellectual resources.

Referring next to FIGS. 13 and 14, schematic diagrams of an exemplarymulti-phase first subgroup arrangement and an exemplary multi-phasesecond subgroup arrangement for an exemplary group is shown. Shown arethe CCS 102, the plurality of computing devices 104, the plurality ofexchanges of data 106, a plurality of first subgroups 1300, a pluralityof first suggestions subsets 1302, a plurality of phase two secondsubgroups 1400, and a plurality of second suggestion subsets 1402.

The exemplary collaborative group is comprised of 720 users, each ofsaid 720 users interacting with one of said computing devices 104 inexchanging data 106 with the CCS 102. A question is posed to the groupunder computer moderation of the present invention, said questionappearing on the display interfaces of said users through the CIAsoftware running on each of said computing devices 104. Furthermore, thesuggestion dialog box 1004 is displayed to each of said 720 users usingthe methods described previously, the question and suggestion boxesappearing substantially at the same time for all users, along with thesuggestion countdown timer 1008 that indicates how much time the grouphas to provide suggestions. In this example, the suggestion countdowntimer 1008 provides the group with 30 seconds to provide suggestions.

As the suggestion countdown timer 1008 counts down, a large number ofsaid users provide suggestions by entering them into the suggestiondialog box 1004 of the display interface of their computing device 104.The CIA software running on each computing device 104 communicates thesuggestion to the CCS 102. The CCS 102 collects all the suggestions inmemory, keeping a running list of the number of suggestions. Thecollection process ends when either (a) the suggestion countdown timer1008 runs out, or (b) when a desired number of suggestions is collected.In this way, a very large set of suggestions is collected by the CCS 102during the real-time 30 second period. The CCS 102 keeps a count of thenumber of suggestions received and determines if a sufficient number ofsuggestions are received during the allotted time. In this particularexample, the CCS 102 is configured to assess if at least 50% of the 720users provide suggestions during the allotted period. In this example,exactly 50% of the users, or 360 users, provide suggestions, thussatisfying the requirement. 50% is an effective size because (a) itassures that a large portion of the total user base has participated,and (b) it allows users not to participate if they simply don't have asuggestion to give. In general, a desired number of suggestions isconfigured in the CCS 102 software to be somewhere between 20% and 70%of the total group size.

In this example, the CCS 102 software waits until 50% is reached, whichcorresponds to an initial suggestion set of 360 suggestions provided bythe example group of 720 members. The CCS 102 is then operative to beginthe computer moderated evaluation and decision process by defining theplurality of first subgroups 1300, each of said first subgroups 1300populated with a designated number of members of the total group, eachof said first subgroups 1300 tasked with selecting from among one of theplurality of first suggestion subsets 1302 of the full initialsuggestion set collected. To do this, the CCS 102 software spawns aplurality of virtual sub-servers, each of said virtual sub-servers to bein communication with the computing devices 104 of the members of eachdefined subgroup.

If, for example, the total group has 720 users and the total number ofsuggestions received by the CCS 102 from those users is a set of 360suggestions, and if the CCS 102 has been configured to presentsynchronous collaborative questions with 6 input choices 208 to chooseamong, as shown in the example input choice set of FIGS. 16-19, the CCS102 splits the set of 360 suggestions into 60 first suggestion subsets1302, each of said first subsets 1302 comprising 6 suggestions. In otherwords, the CCS 102 is configured to divide the total number ofsuggestions by the number of input choices 208 to be displayed on thecollaborative interface of each users, thereby calculating the number offirst subgroups 1300 needed to process all 360 suggestions in parallel:

Number of first subgroups=(Total number of suggestions)/(number of inputchoices shown on the display interface)

Thus, in the present example, the CCS 102 software computes that 60first subgroups 1300 are needed as a result of dividing the 360suggestions collected by the 6 input choices 208 that will be presentedon each CIA display. Each first subgroup 1300 will include 720 groupmembers/60 subgroups=12 members per first subgroup 1300, as illustratedin FIG. 13. A first subgroup 1300, designated A1, selects a first targetfrom the suggestion subset 1302 consisting of suggestions 1-6. A secondfirst subgroup 1300, designated A2, selects a second target from thesuggestion subset 1302 consisting of suggestions 7-12, and so on,through 60th subgroup A60 1300 and the suggestion subset 1302 consistingof suggestions 355-360.

In the event that the number of suggestions is not evenly divisible bythe number of input choices 208 on the CIA display, one or more firstsubgroups 1300 of the total number of subgroups can be presented withless than a full set of input choices 208. For example, if 359suggestions were collected, 60 first subgroups 1300 would be defined bythe CCS 102, with 59 of those first subgroups 1300 being assigned a fullset of 6 input choices 208, and one first subgroup 1300 being defined apartial set of 5 input choices 208. Alternatively, a duplicatesuggestion could be used to fill the last input choice 208 of the lastfirst subgroup 1300. This is generally avoided because it could give anunintentional bias to that suggestion.

It should be noted that there may be natural duplicates of many of thesuggestions resulting from the fact that some members of the group ofusers may have provided similar suggestions. This is generally not aproblem, for the bias washes across multiple phases. That said, someembodiments of the CCS 102 software can be configured to check for andeliminate substantially duplicate suggestions.

Whether duplicates are eliminated or not, the CCS 102 software isconfigured to divide the total group of users into the large number offirst subgroups 1300, each of which are assigned the small suggestionsubset 1302 of the total suggestion set. These first subgroups 1300, asenabled by the CIA software running on the computing device 104 of eachmember of that first subgroup 1300, are tasked with evaluating andselecting from among the provided input choices 208. Each first subgroup1300 then sends the resulting target to the CCS 102, which becomes partof a second suggestion set. In the exemplary system of FIGS. 13 and 14,the 60 first subgroups 1300 have each selected the target, resulting inthe second suggestion list of 60 suggestions. The process then repeats,wherein the total group is divided up again by the CCS 102, but now withlarger subgroups, for the total number of suggestions has been reduced.As a result, the CCS 102 recombines the phase one first subgroups 1300into the new set of the plurality of phase two second subgroups 1400,each of the phase two second subgroups 1400 being a factor of six largerthan the first subgroup sizes used in phase one. The resulting phase twosecond subgroup arrangement is shown in FIG. 14. In this way, the phasetwo second subgroups 1400 have a harder task, selecting among a strongerset of suggestions, but the phase two second subgroups 1400 also havemore collaborative “brainpower”—for they each have six times the numberof participants than the phase one round. The same is true as the systemproceeds to further phases, reducing the number of suggestions andtasking larger subgroups to choose among at each phase in themulti-phase process. This is a highly effective methodology, resultingin a very fast and efficient means of collaborative creativity andcollaborative decision making.

As shown in FIG. 14, the phase two second subgroups 1400 comprise 10second subgroups 1400, each including 72 members: subgroup B1, subgroupB2, etc., through subgroup B10. Each phase two second subgroup 1400selects the target from one of the plurality of second suggestion subset1402 consisting of 6 suggestions from the phase two suggestion list. Asshown in FIG. 14, subgroup B1 1400 selects from the second suggestionsubset 1402 consisting of suggestions 1-6, subgroup B2 from secondsuggestion subset 1402 consisting of suggestions 7-12, etc. The selectedtargets are then formed into a third suggestion list by the CCS 102,comprising 10 suggestions of the original suggestions list.

Thus, the present invention enables the formation and moderation oflarge-scale collaborative groups and enables those groups to answerquestions (or otherwise respond to prompts) as a single intelligententity, the single intelligent entity able to collect massive numbers ofsuggestions from networked participants in real-time and then evaluatethose suggestions through the use of massively-parallel collaborativesynchronous, real-time groups, until a single solution emerges from thegroup that reflects the collaborative will of the entire group. Becauseof the efficiencies of parallel processing, the final solution canemerge in a time that's far shorter than any single individual in thegroup could have even read and considered all the suggestions. Theresult is a super-intelligence that exceeds the creative ability anddecision-making ability of any single member of the group.

Referring next to FIG. 15, a method for the multi-phase collaborationprocess is shown. Shown are a compile suggestion list step 1500, adetermine number of subgroups step 1502, an assign/send suggestions step1504, a select one target step 1506, a new suggestion list step 1508, anumber of suggestions decision point 1510, and a begin answer periodstep 1512.

The present invention can be described in term of the step-by-stepmethods by which the group of users can be enabled, under computermoderated control of the CCS 102, to form the massively parallelcollaborative intelligence that can provide large numbers of creativesuggestions and then select among those large numbers of suggestions ina very short amount of time.

Prior to the multi-phase process, the collaborative system is assembledand enabled as described in the co-pending applications: The pluralityof computing devices 104 are connected to the central collaborationserver 102, said plurality of computing devices 104 running the localCIA software that communicates real-time bidirectional data 106 with thecentralized server 102 running CCS 102 routines. The CIA softwareenables the display of the prompt to the user of that device, saidprompt sent from the CCS 102 to all said computing devices 104 atsubstantially the same time, enabling the real-time synchronousresponse. The real-time prompt received from the CCS 102 and displayedby the CIA software may be a question, decision, notion, or action to bedecided upon by the group through the real-time synchronouscollaborative process. In many embodiments, the prompt may be posed by amember of the group. In some embodiments, the prompt may be crafted bythe group itself. In some embodiments, the prompt may come from anothergroup, enabling to artificial collaborative intelligences tocommunicate/debate.

The suggestion mode process is then started as previously described. Inthe multi-phase process, large number of suggestions are provided bylarge numbers of users through the substantially simultaneous display ofthe prompt to each of said users on the plurality of computing devices104.

In the first step of the multi-phase process, the compile suggestionlist step 1500, the CCS 102 compiles a first suggestion list comprisedof all suggestions received from the plurality of computing devices 104during the suggestion period.

In the next determine number of subgroups step 1502, the number ofsubgroups is determined based on a number of suggestions, and a numberof input choices 208 shown on the target area 206 of the displayinterfaces. As previously described, the number of subgroups=(Totalnumber of suggestions)/(number of input choices). Each group members isthen assigned to one subgroup, such that each subgroup has equal, orclose to equal, numbers of members.

In the next assign/send suggestions step 1504, the CCS 102 assigns aunique suggestion subset to each subgroup. The number of suggestions ineach suggestion subset is equal to the number of input choices 208available for selection on the target area 206 of the display interface.Each suggestion subset is then sent to the computing devices 104 of theassociated subgroup.

Next, in the select one target step 1506, each subgroup completes thecollaborative answer session as previously described in the co-pendingapplications, resulting in the subgroup collaboratively selecting onetarget from the suggestion subset.

In the next new suggestion list step 1508, the CCS 102 compiles eachtarget receives from each subgroup into a new, updated suggestion list,where the number of suggestions is now equal to the number of subgroups.The process then proceeds to the number of suggestions decision point1510.

In the number of suggestions decision point 1510, if the number ofsuggestions is within an allowed range of input choices that the targetarea 206 is configured to display, i.e. less than a maximum number ofinput choices, the process proceeds to the begin answer period step1512.

In the begin answer period step 1512, the subgroups are recombined intoone single group, and each suggestion is displayed on the target area206 as one input choice 208. The answer period then proceeds asdescribed in previous applications, with the group collaborativelyselecting the target from the input choices 208.

If the number of suggestions in the new suggestion list is greater thanthe maximum number of input choices, the process returns to thedetermine number of subgroups step 1502, where the CCS 102 reconfiguresthe members into new subgroups using the revised (smaller) suggestionlist, and the process proceeds through as many subgroup iterations asrequired until the number of suggestions is less than the maximumnumber, and then proceeds to the begin answer period step 1512.

This method enables through the coordinated interaction of the CCS 102and the large number of computing devices 104, each running CIAsoftware, the large numbers of users to collaboratively consider the setof refined suggestions in the computer-moderated parallel process inwhich the total group of users (i.e. the full group) is dynamicallyre-grouped again into subgroups which evaluate one subset of the set ofrefined suggestions in parallel, each of said smaller subgroupsproducing a selected highly-refined suggestion from their designatedsubset of refined-suggestions. This results in the large set of initialsuggestions being parallel-processed into the smaller set of refinedsuggestions, the smaller set of refined-suggestions then beingparallel-processed by newly defined subgroups into the even smaller setof highly-refined suggestions. This process referred to herein as“regrouping and refining”.

In coordinating the regrouping and refining process, the CCS 102combines subgroups into larger groups as the process proceeds, phaseafter phase. More specifically, at each phase in the process the CCS 102is configured to divide the total number of suggestions in the currentlyactive suggestion set by the total number of input choices 208 to bedisplayed by the CIA software to each user, thereby calculating thenumber of subgroups needed to process the current set of suggestions inparallel. If the CIA software is configured to display the set of 6input choices 208 to the user during the given collaborative selectionround, the number of suggestions left after each subsequent phase ofrefinement will be ⅙ the number of prior suggestions. Thus the CCS 102software is configured to combine groups such that they are 6 timeslarger in each subsequent phase.

The “regrouping and refining” process may be repeated as many times asnecessary to reduce the initial set of suggestions down to a final setof suggestions that is small enough that it can be considered by theentire group in a single collaborative session of synchronousdecision-making. In many preferred embodiments, the small enough set isdefined as a number of suggestions between 2 and 12, for such a set sizecan be considered by a single user in a short amount of time. In onepreferred embodiment, the set of 6 suggestions/input choices 208 ischosen as the ideal size for the final suggestion set. Thus, the initialset of suggestions (which could have started out in the thousands) isprocessed under computer mediated control by subgroups working inparallel, each of said subgroups considering subsets of the initialsuggestion set to produce the smaller refined suggestion set, thisprocess being repeated iteratively until the small final set ofsuggestions is produced.

Thus the final set of suggestions is considered by the entire group inthe collaborative real-time decision-making process such that the groupworks as the synchronous collaborative unit to select one solution fromsaid final set of suggestions, said one solution being the group'schosen answer to the prompt that kicked off the process. This answer isdetermined by the CCS 102 software and communicated to all the computingdevices 104 for display by the CIA software to the users of thosedevices. In this way, all users who participated in the group areinformed as to answer that was chosen by the collaborative will of thegroup.

The aforementioned process is very powerful, enabling the large group ofnetworked users (i.e. group) to form the real-time collaborativeintelligence that can think creatively and make decisions in anextremely fast manner. More specifically, the present invention allowsthe large group of networked users to receive the question (or othersimilar prompt) on their personal computing devices 104 and tocollectively provide the large number of real-time suggestions inresponse to said question (or other similar prompt). The presentinvention further allows the large group of networked users tocollaboratively consider and evaluate said large set of suggestions,narrowing the large set of suggestions to a manageable set of solutionsthrough the computer-mediated process that divides the large group ofusers into the plurality of subgroups, each of said subgroups enabled toconsider one subset of the large set of suggestions in parallel. Thepresent invention further enables the iterative process of FIG. 15 inwhich said set large set of suggestions is repeatedly narrowed tosmaller and smaller sets through subsequent re-grouping of the largegroup of users, each subsequent regrouping enabling a larger set ofusers to consider a smaller set of highly refined solutions. The presentinvention further enables said iterative process to culminate when amanageable set of final suggestions is reached, said manageable setcomprising few enough suggestions that individuals can rapidly considerand compare them. The present invention further provides the finalselection process in which the full group of users is enabled tocollaboratively select the final solution from the final set ofsuggestions using the real-time synchronous control process, saidcollaborative selection resulting in the final answer. The presentinvention thereby employs the inventive computer-mediatedparallel-processing methodology to enable a highly efficientcollaborative intelligence using dynamically defined subgroups that arereconfigured during the selection process.

In the example illustrated in FIGS. 13 and 14, the first set of 360suggestions from the group including 720 members is received by the CCS102 during the allotted time. The CCS 102 groups these suggestions into60 first suggestion subsets 1302 of 6 input choices 208. To evaluatethese 60 first suggestion subsets 1302, the CCS 102 also divides thegroup of 720 users into 60 first subgroups of 12 users each. Each ofsaid first subgroups of 12 users is treated by the CCS 102 as its ownmini-group. More specifically, the CCS 102 sends the computing devices104 of the member of each first subgroup, one of the 60 first suggestionsubsets 1302 of 6 suggestions, each of said first subgroups tasked withthe real-time synchronous decision process of evaluating their assignedfirst suggestion subset 1302 of 6 suggestions and collaborativelychoosing the single best suggestion as the target using thecollaborative process. In this example, each first subgroup 1300 isgiven 20 seconds to make that decision, using the innovativecomputer-moderated real-time collaborative control methods describedherein. Thus at the end of these 20 seconds, each of said 60 firstsubgroups of 12 users produces the target as a preferred solution fromamong their first suggestion subset 1302 of six solutions.

This results in the refined second suggestion set of 60 suggestions. Inthis way, the massively parallel process allows the group to consider360 suggestions and narrow it down to 60 refined suggestions in only 20seconds.

The CCS 102 processes the set of 60 refined suggestions and breaks thesecond suggestion set up into new second suggestion subsets 1402, eachof said second suggestion subsets 1402 again comprising 6 input choices208. More specifically, the CCS 102 breaks up the set of 60 refinedsolutions into 10 subsets of 6 refined solutions. To evaluate these 10second suggestion subsets 1402, the CCS 102 then divides the group of720 users into 10 second subgroups 1400 of 72 users. Each of said secondsubgroups 1400 of 72 users is treated by the CCS 102 as its ownmini-group. More specifically, the CCS 102 sends the computing devices104 of the member of each second subgroup 1400, one of the 10 secondsuggestion subsets 1402 of 6 suggestions, each of said second subgroups1400 tasked with the real-time synchronous decision process ofevaluating their assigned second suggestion subset 1402 of 6 suggestionsand collaboratively choosing a single best suggestion as the target. Inthis example, each second subgroup 1400 is given 20 seconds to make thatdecision, using the innovative computer-moderated real-timecollaborative control methods described herein. Thus at the end of these20 seconds, each of said 10 second subgroups 1400 of 72 users, producesthe preferred solution from among their second suggestion subset 1402 ofsix solutions. The result of this iteration of the inventive process isa third set of 10 highly-refined-suggestions, generated by the 10 secondsubgroups 1400 of 72 users working in parallel.

Thus, after only 60 seconds has passed since the question was firstposed to the group, the current invention has enabled the collection of360 proposed solutions from the group of 720 users and has enabled the720 users to collaborate in parallel first subgroups 1300 to refine thatset of 360 solutions to a preferred second set of 60 refined solutions,then further refined the second set of 60 solutions to a third set of 10highly refined solutions.

The present invention could be configured to repeat the process,splitting the 720 member group into two third groups, each of whichconsiders a third suggestion subset of 5 highly-refined solutions, orthe present invention could skip that step and present all 10 of thehighly refined solutions to the entire group for final consideration.

Because the second suggestion set of highly refined solutions is smallenough (10 suggestions) that any single user could viably consider thefull suggestion set in a very short amount of time, the software isconfigured to choose the latter option in this particular example case.Thus, the CCS 102 software is configured to now engage the full group inthe final collaborative decision process in which all group members aresimultaneously presented with the 10 highly refined solutions and taskedto use the collaborative control methods disclosed herein tocollectively choose one of the 10 solutions in 20 seconds or less. Undercomputer moderated control, the group of 720 users converges upon thetarget, which is then presented as the final solution to all members ofthe group. The solution is also stored, logged, and optionally Tweeted®for the world to peruse under computer moderated methods, as disclosedin co-pending patent applications.

Thus, after only 80 seconds, the current invention has enabled posingthe question to the group of 720 users working in the collaborativegroup, collected 360 possible solutions, refined that set of 360possible solutions to the preferred subset of 60 refined solutionsthrough a massively parallel process, then further refined the set of 60solutions to the set of 10 highly refined solutions through anotherparallel process, then selected the final solution from that set of 10highly refined solutions using the real-time synchronous collaborativeprocess. The end result is the computer moderated collaborativeintelligence that is extremely powerful, for it collaborativelyconsidered the posed prompt (i.e. question), collected 360 ideas whichcomprises the highly creative intelligence, then considered all 360solutions and selected one, all in 80 seconds, resulting in a highlydiscriminating intelligence.

Furthermore, the present invention can be scaled up to support any sizegroup, so long as sufficient computing power is provided, the larger thegroup the more intelligent the resulting system 100. For example, if thegroup were comprised of 100,000 users all networked to the CCS 102 usingthe methods and systems disclosed herein, the question could be posed toall 100,000 in a substantially simultaneous manner, being displayed toall users by the CIA software running on their personal computingdevices 104. That question could be, for example, “How do we solve worldpeace?”, or, “How to we end the Ebola crisis?”

If the CCS 102 is configured to accept the suggestion set that is 50% ofthe size of the total number of users, it means the CCS 102 couldquickly collect 50,000 suggestions in parallel, said suggestions thenbeing carefully considered by computer moderated subgroups in a seriesof phases.

In only 20 seconds, 50,000 suggestions would be collected. After another20 seconds, those suggestions would be refined down to 8334 suggestionsthrough the inventive massively parallel process. After another 20seconds, those refined suggestions would be refined further to a set of1382 suggestions through the inventive massively parallel process. Afteranother 20 seconds, those refined suggestions would be further refinedto a set of 231 through the inventive massively parallel process. Afteranother 20 seconds, those refined suggestions would be further refinedto a set of 39 through the inventive massively parallel process. Afteranother 20 seconds, those refined suggestions would be further refinedto a set of 7 through the inventive massively parallel process. Afteranother 20 seconds, the final solution would be chosen by the entiregroup, resulting in a final solution to the posed prompt.

In other words, the present invention enables a massive group of usersto engage in a massively parallel, multi-stage, collaborative decisionmaking process that enables them to: (a) consider the simultaneouslypresented prompt that conveys a question or decision to be solved by thegroup, (b) collaboratively generate a huge number of suggested solutionsin response to the prompt in a very short amount of time (for example50,000 suggested answers generated in 20 seconds the example above), (c)refine that massive set of suggestions down to a carefully consideredfinal answer by splitting the total set of suggestions into theplurality of subsets, each of said subsets considered by one subgroup ofthe total group, said subgroups working in parallel to select preferredsolutions using collaborative synchronous decision methods describedherein, (d) iterating the process such that each time a refined set ofsolutions is produced by the set of parallel subgroups, a newly definedset of larger subgroups considers the set of refined solutions inparallel, (e) culminating the iterative process when the singlemanageably sized set of highly refined solutions is produced, (f) havingthe full group collaboratively select the single preferred solution fromthe single manageably sized set of solutions. Because of the massivelyparallel nature of the present invention, said single preferred solutionis generated very quickly from the very large set of suggestedsolutions, (e.g. the 50,000 suggestions of the example above is refineddown to a single preferred solution in only 2 minutes and 20 seconds.)Referring next to FIGS. 16-19 exemplary target areas of displayinterfaces are shown during an exemplary multi-group multi-phaseprocess. FIG. 16 is an exemplary target area 1600 of one computingdevice 104 during the suggestion period of the multi-group, multi-phasecollaboration process. FIG. 17 is an exemplary target area 1700 of thecomputing device 104 at a first point during the first phase of themulti-group, multi-phase collaboration process. FIG. 18 is an exemplarytarget area 1800 of the computing device 104 at a second point duringthe first phase of a multi-group, multi-phase collaboration process.FIG. 19 is an exemplary target area 1900 of the computing device 104during the second phase of the multi-group, multi-phase collaborationprocess. Also shown are the plurality of input choices 208, the pointer210, the question display 302, the countdown clock 304, the magnet icon306, the plurality of input choice placeholders 1002, the suggestiondialog box 1004, and the suggestion countdown timer 1008.

To support the creation of the computer-moderated collaborativeintelligence system 100 across large numbers of networked usersemploying the massively parallel process described above, additionalinventive methods are disclosed herein that improve the user experience.More specifically, inventive display methods have been developed forensuring that each user has a seamless and engaging experience duringthe period of real-time massively parallel synchronous swarming.

In many preferred embodiments, users are shuttled through themulti-phase process by the moderating software running on the CCS 102,the process involving numerous phases with users assigned by the CCS 102to subgroups that change from phase to phase, but from the perspectiveof each individual user interacting with the local CIA softwaredisplayed on his own computing device 104, the environment remainsconsistent such that the user has little indication (if any) that theuser is being re-assigned to different subgroups across each phase ofthe multi-phase process. From the perspective of each user, the overallenvironment doesn't change, the playing field appearing consistent, onlythe set of input choices 208 being updated as that user progresses fromphase to phase in the multi-phase process.

More specifically, the single user of the single computing device 104connected to the central CCS 102 by communication link will experiencehaving the prompt appear on his display interface when the question ordecision is put before the entire group, said prompt indicating thequestion or decision the group is being asked to solve. This, forexample, could be a text prompt describing an open ended question suchas, “What happened to the missing Malaysian airliner that has never beenfound?” Or, for example, it could be a highly subjective question thathas so many possibilities, it would never be suitable for a poll orother asynchronous process. For example, “What's the best movie evermade?”

In the example shown in FIGS. 16-19, the large group of users is engagedwith the inventive system 100, each using the computing device 104running CIA software in communication over a network to a central CCS102. One of said users enters the question, or the CCS 102 generates thequestion automatically, such that the question appears in the questiondisplay upon all the display interfaces of all users in a substantiallysimultaneous manner. Also displayed by the CIA software running on eachcomputing device 104 is the suggestion dialog box 1004 as previouslydescribed, asking the user for a suggested answer to the prompt. Theexemplary target area 1600 at this stage is shown in FIG. 16, with theprompt “What's the BEST MOVE ever made?” included in the questiondisplay 302, and the suggestion dialog box 1004 (including thesuggestion input field 1006 and the suggestion countdown timer 1008)displayed in the target area 1600. Instead of input choices 208displayed on the target area 1600, the plurality of input choiceplaceholders 1002 (each indicated by the “?” character) are shownarranged on the target area 1600, approximately equidistant from eachother.

In response to the prompt shown in the question display 302, the singleuser of the single computing device 104 will provide one suggestion byentering it into the suggestion dialog box 1004, using methods describedpreviously. The CCS 102 will receive this suggestion along withsuggestions from a large number of other users. For a large group of100,000 users, the number of suggestions could be massive, for example50,000 suggestions collected during the short suggestion period. Thissaid, the innovative user interface methodology of the present inventionmakes it possible for the single user not to be overwhelmed or evenaware of the massive set of suggestions provided by others in the largegroup. That's because the CCS 102 immediately splits the massive set ofsuggestions into the large number of suggestion subsets, each of saidsubsets a manageable size for individual users. Thus what appears oneach individual user's computing device 104, as moderated by the centralCCS 102, is the small subset of input choices 208 to choose between.

FIG. 17 shows the target area 1700 with the input choice placeholders1002 replaced by input choices 208 from one suggestion subset of theinitial suggestion list. In this example, the single user has beenassigned to one subgroup with 11 other users by the CCS 102 (aspreviously shown in FIG. 13). The CCS 102 coordinates the routing ofeach of the 12 users to the same subgroup by launching the sub-serverthat connects these users into the subgroup using the methods describedpreviously. In this way, the subgroup is enabled to work in synchronyunder time pressure to select one of the input choices 208 presented tothem in the subset of selections. The input choices 208 presented to theexemplary subgroup are: “A Clockwork Orange”, “Citizen Kane”, “Jaws”,“Rear Window”, “The Blues Brothers”, and “Full Metal Jacket”.

At the same time, many other subgroups are working in parallel, eachbeing displayed a different suggestion subset of input choices 208 fromthe full set of suggestions provided. Thus the single user in thisexample need not be concerned about the specific users who are part ofhis subgroup, or even know how many other users are part of thatsubgroup. All the user needs to focus on is helping to guide thegraphical pointer 210 to one of the input choices 208 in the suggestionsubset displayed by the CIA software running on his computing device104, the graphical pointer 210 moving under the real-time synchronouscollaborative control of the single user and the rest of his definedsubgroup. Together, the single user and the other members of hissubgroup collaboratively select the target from the input choice optionsthey started with.

Referring next to FIG. 18, the exemplary target area 1800 shows that thesubgroup is about to select the input choice “Jaws” from the subset ofmovie suggestions presented to the subgroup under synchronous real-timecontrol. This selection may be associated with a group cohesivenessscore for the subgroup.

Upon selection of the target as the refined suggestion, the CCS 102moderating the subgroup is ready to move this group to the next phase.In some embodiments, there may be a short delay while the CCS 102 waitsfor other parallel subgroups to complete their selection process aswell. The CCS 102 need not wait for all subgroups to complete theirselection process, but rather waits until enough subgroups have chosenanswers that the answers can fill the target area 1600 of a singlesubgroup. In example above, with six slots on the target area 1800, theCCS 102 need only wait for five other subgroups to select the targetbefore it moves those six subgroups to the next phase. Then, upon eachsubsequent six subgroups finishing, those subgroups are moved to thenext (second) phase as well. Each group of six subgroups are then mergedinto a new larger subgroup by the CCS 102 software. (The number six isdue to the six slots on the target area 1800 of this example).

Considering the single user mentioned above, his subgroup chose thetarget “Jaws”. That selection remains on the target area 1800 displayedby his or her computing device by the CIA software. The other five slotson the target area 1800 are replaced by the selections made by the otherfive subgroups that have been merged with his original subgroup. Theuser need not be aware that other users have joined his subgroup,although an indication of the size of the subgroup can be displayed bythe CIA software. In some instances the user may be curious to know howmany others he or she is now working with as they've progressed to thenext phase.

Referring next to FIG. 19, the exemplary target area 1900 during theselection period of the second phase is shown. Thus when in the secondphase, the single user, plus the 11 other users from his originalsubgroup, plus the 12 users from each of the 5 other subgroups that havebeen merged with his subgroup, all see the same input choices 208 andare tasked with collaboratively selecting the target from the inputchoices 208. The input choice “Jaws” remains in the target area 1900,along with five input choices 208 targeted by other subgroups: “Raidersof the Lost Ark”, Star Wars”, “Shrek”, “The Spy Who Loved Me”, and “TheFrench Connection”.

This inventive method enables for a seamless, engaging, and funexperience for each individual user. From the perspective of a singleuser, once the target is selected from among the initial set of inputchoices 208 that were displayed on his computing device, that chosentarget remains, but the other five choices that were on his screen arereplaced by new choices (all of them being refined solutions that werechosen by other subgroups). The new task for this user is also easy tounderstand: to consider the set of refined choices that are nowdisplayed and collaboratively guide the graphical pointer 210 towards adesired highly-refined-solution. This collaborative process is nowperformed with the larger subgroup that has been newly assigned andcoordinated by the CCS 102 software. If the initial subgroup had 12users as in the example above, the new subgroup has 72 users, for thesubgroup is created by the CCS software merging the 6 subgroups thatselected the six choices in the figure above (as described in FIG. 14).Thus what happens behind the scenes, without the single user needing tobe concerned about, is that his subgroup has grown, now including themembers of each of the subgroups that had selected the other 5 refinedchoices. And of course, this same process is performed in parallel withmany other subgroups, merging together.

It's important to note that each of the new input choices 208 appearingon the single user's screen is associated with a subgroup of users whohad chosen that input choice at the target, those subgroups now beingadded to the single user's new subgroup. Thus, the size of the group hasgrown by a factor of six. More importantly, it has grown in a very smartway, because each choice comes with a set of users who may have a biasto one input choice, but because this is true of all six of the refinedchoices, it balances out. In other words, groups are merged with theother groups that provided refined suggestions to their new decisionprocess, thus canceling out any bias that each subgroup may bring to thenewly formed larger subgroup.

Now the new larger subgroup needs to work together through synchronousreal-time collaboration to control the pointer 210 and choose the targetfrom among the newly displayed choices. It should be noted that all theother users in this subgroup had a similar experience to the singleuser. They all were part of the small subgroup that chose the refinedsolution from among the small set of initial solutions. In doing so,they all saw the other options in their initial set replaced by newoptions. They also had their subgroups combined with other subgroupsassociated with those options, thus forming a new and larger subgroup.It should also be noted that the exact same process is happening amongmany other subgroups of users in parallel, the number of those othergroups of users depending upon the size of the total group.

The phase two subgroup (six times larger than his original sub group) isnow considering the set of six refined input choices 208, the groupworking collaboratively to move the pointer 210 to one of the inputchoices 208, thereby collaboratively selecting it as the target. In thisway, the synchronous group of users (subgroup) works together to choosethe highly refined solution from among the set of six refined inputchoices 208. Upon selection, the single user will experience a repeat ofthe prior process, having the choices that were not selected replaced bya full set of highly refined solutions. Again, those highly refinedsolutions are associated with other subgroups of similar size that aremerged with the group of the single user by the software processesdisclosed herein. Thus, the single user's group has grown by a factor ofsix, yet again. And once again, the additional members include thesubgroups that chose each of the five new highly refined solutions thatappeared on the single user's screen.

This process repeats, each time the subgroup picking the solution fromamong the set of displayed solutions, those solutions that were notselected then being replaced by the solutions chosen by other subgroups,those subgroups then being merged into the full group. The number oftimes the process repeats depends on the number of users in the totalgroup as well as the number of solutions that get displayed on theuser's screen each time. In the current example, six input choices 208get displayed each time, which is why the groups grow by a factor of 6each time. Other embodiments could use a different number of solutionsdisplayed at once. The important thing is that the number of solutionsbe small enough that each user can consider all of them, very quickly,and converge on a solution. In practice, some embodiments restrict thisnumber to a set that is no smaller than 2 and no larger than 12.

As described previously, the CCS 102 software will repeatedly mergegroups after each stage of the selection process, until only one groupis formed, reaching a size that's substantially the full group. Underthe methods described herein, the CCS 102 software will form this fullsized group when the set of suggestions has been reduced to the singleset of manageable size. Thus, the full group is tasked with consideringthe small set of top choices that have emerged from this massiveparallel process.

Depending on the size of the initial group of users, many stages ofrefinement may have been coordinated by the CCS 102 software, withgroups being strategically merged after each stage, but from any singleuser's perspective, all that's happened is that as he was presented withthe small set of suggestions to choose from, worked with other users tochoose one suggestion from among that small set, the unselectedsuggestions were then replaced with new suggestions, the group beingtasked with selecting one suggestion from among the new set, thisprocess then repeats a number of times until finally he is informed thatthe input choices 208 are now the final set and the single user istasked with helping to select the final answer. The process is fun andfast and seamless, moderated by the CCS 102 that dynamically redefinesthe members of the subgroups associated with each set of choices to bechosen among in parallel.

Thus, the present invention enables the formation and moderation oflarge-scale collaborative groups and enables those groups to answerquestions (or otherwise respond to prompts) as the single intelligententity, the single intelligent entity able to field large numbers ofsuggestions from large numbers of participants in real-time and thenevaluate and refine the large numbers of suggestions by using themassively-parallel, collaborative synchronous, real-time process, untilthe final collective will emerges from the group indicating the groupscollaborative intent, all happening in a very short amount of time.

In fact, the present invention has been architected such that the finalsolution to the question or other prompt can emerge from a massivenumber of suggestions in a time that's far shorter than any singleindividual could have even read and considered all the suggestions. Theresult is a super-intelligence that exceeds the creative ability anddecision-making ability of any single member of the group.

While many embodiments are described herein, it is appreciated that thisinvention can have a range of variations that practice the same basicmethods and achieve the novel collaborative capabilities that have beendisclosed above. Many of the functional units described in thisspecification have been labeled as modules, in order to moreparticularly emphasize their implementation independence. For example, amodule may be implemented as a hardware circuit comprising custom VLSIcircuits or gate arrays, off-the-shelf semiconductors such as logicchips, transistors, or other discrete components. A module may also beimplemented in programmable hardware devices such as field programmablegate arrays, programmable array logic, programmable logic devices or thelike.

Modules may also be implemented in software for execution by varioustypes of processors. An identified module of executable code may, forinstance, comprise one or more physical or logical blocks of computerinstructions that may, for instance, be organized as an object,procedure, or function. Nevertheless, the executables of an identifiedmodule need not be physically located together, but may comprisedisparate instructions stored in different locations which, when joinedlogically together, comprise the module and achieve the stated purposefor the module.

Indeed, a module of executable code could be a single instruction, ormany instructions, and may even be distributed over several differentcode segments, among different programs, and across several memorydevices. Similarly, operational data may be identified and illustratedherein within modules, and may be embodied in any suitable form andorganized within any suitable type of data structure. The operationaldata may be collected as a single data set, or may be distributed overdifferent locations including over different storage devices, and mayexist, at least partially, merely as electronic signals on a system ornetwork.

While the invention herein disclosed has been described by means ofspecific embodiments, examples and applications thereof, numerousmodifications and variations could be made thereto by those skilled inthe art without departing from the scope of the invention set forth inthe claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A suggestion mode process for a group of users inreal-time collaborative control of at least one graphical object, eachuser of the group associated with one of a plurality of computingdevices, each computing device including a display interface, configuredto exchange data with a collaboration server, and run a collaborationapplication, the collaboration server performing the steps of:receiving, from a first computing device of a first user of the group, arepresentation of a question, a first user identity, and a suggestionmode indication; sending of the representation of the question and thesuggestion mode indication to each of the plurality of computingdevices, whereby each collaboration application updates the displayinterface to display the representation of the question, the suggestionmode indication and a suggestion input field configured to receiveinput; receiving, from a second computing device of a second user of thegroup, a representation of a suggestion based on input received by thesuggestion input field, and a second user identity; adding therepresentation of the suggestion to a suggestion list; and sending ofthe representation of the suggestion to the plurality of computingdevices.
 2. The suggestion mode process of claim 1, further comprisingthe step of each of the plurality of computing devices, upon receivingthe representation of the suggestion, displaying the suggestion as ananswer choice on a target area of the display interface.
 3. Thesuggestion mode process of claim 1, wherein the identity of the seconduser is displayed and associated with the suggestion.
 4. The suggestionmode process of claim 2, further comprising the steps of receiving, fromat least one additional computing device, at least one additionalrepresentation of a suggestion; adding the at least one additionalrepresentation of the suggestion to the suggestion list; and sending ofthe at least one additional representation of the suggestion to theplurality of computing devices.
 5. The suggestion mode process of claim4, further comprising the step of each of the plurality of computingdevices, upon receiving the at least one additional representation ofthe suggestion, displaying the additional suggestion as an answer choiceon a target area of the display interface.
 6. The suggestion modeprocess of claim 4, whereby the step of the collaboration server sendingof the representation of the question and the suggestion mode indicationto each of the plurality of computing devices includes sending anindication that triggers a countdown timer for a countdown time periodto each of the plurality of computing devices, whereby each displayinterface displays the countdown timer counting down to zero.
 7. Thesuggestion mode process of claim 6, wherein the suggestion mode processis ended when the countdown time period is ended.
 8. The suggestion modeprocess of claim 7, wherein an answer period is begun upon ending of thesuggestion mode process, wherein the plurality of users collaborativelyselect a target from the suggestion list using the real-timecollaborative control.
 9. The suggestion mode process of claim 5,wherein the target area includes a plurality of answer choiceplaceholders, and wherein each suggestion received takes the place ofone answer choice placeholder.
 10. The suggestion mode process of claim9, wherein the suggestion mode process is ended when each answer choiceplaceholder has been replaced by one suggestion.
 11. The suggestion modeprocess of claim 1, wherein the suggestion mode process is triggered bythe first user selecting a suggestion mode option from the displayinterface of the first computing device.
 12. The suggestion mode processof claim 4, wherein each computing device may send no more than onerepresentation of the suggestion to the collaboration server.
 13. Abackground mode process for a group of users in real-time collaborativecontrol of at least one graphical object, each user of the groupassociated with one of a plurality of computing devices, each computingdevice including a display interface and configured to exchange datawith a collaboration server and run a collaboration application on thecomputing device, the collaboration server performing the steps of:repeatedly determining, while each of the plurality of computing devicesis running the collaboration application in an active mode, if abackground mode has been triggered by real-time group activity; upondetermining that the background mode has been triggered, sending abackground mode indication to each of the plurality of computingdevices, whereby, the collaboration application of each of the computingdevices enters the background mode; repeatedly determining if a wake-upprocess has been triggered by real-time group activity; and upondetermining that the wake-up process has been triggered, sending awake-up indication to each of the plurality of computing devices,whereby the collaboration application of each of the computing devicesreturns to the active mode.
 14. The background mode process of claim 13,wherein the background mode is triggered by the real-time group activityfalling below an inactivity threshold.
 15. The background mode processof claim 13, wherein the real-time group activity is based at least inpart on a user intent vector associated with each of the plurality ofcomputing devices.
 16. The background mode process of claim 13, whereinthe real-time group activity is based at least in part on an amount oftime since receiving of an indication of a question from one of theplurality of computing devices.
 17. The background mode process of claim13, wherein the real-time group activity is based at least in part on anamount of time since receiving of a chat message by the collaborationserver.
 18. The background mode process of claim 13, wherein sending thewake-up indication includes sending a wake-up message, whereby eachcomputing device displays a representation of the wake-up message on thedisplay interface.
 19. The background mode process of claim 13, whereinthe real-time group activity triggering the wake-up process is aquestion sent to the collaboration server from one of the plurality ofcomputing devices.
 20. The background mode process of claim 13, furthercomprising the step of monitoring messages from the plurality ofcomputing devices to determine if each user associated with eachcomputing device is re-engaged.
 21. The background mode process of claim20, wherein the collaboration server repeatedly tracks how many usersare re-engaged.
 22. The background mode process of claim 21, wherein ananswer session is started only after a certain percentage of users arere-engaged.
 23. The background mode process of claim 22, wherein thecertain percentage of users is predefined as a quorum parameter value.24. The background mode process of claim 21, wherein an answer sessionis started only after a certain percentage of users are re-engagedwithin a time engagement period.